PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: The "Great tribulation" and the Testimony of the Early Church Fathers



Pages : [1] 2

Jerry Shugart
January 17th, 2003, 12:37 PM
The following is the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist.First,we will examine the teaching of Irenaeus,who studied under Polycarp,who was a pupil of the Apostle John.

Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass,especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation.And if Polycarp knew,then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:

“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),thenlet those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).

“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).

Although the testimony of the early church fathers was not inspired,it is clear that Irenaeus was certain that the “great tribulation” had not yet occurred,and he was writing at a point in time that was less than one hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!

In fact,almost all of the early church fathers were of the opinion that the coming of the antichrist remained in the future.Therefore,they did not believe that the “great tribulation” happened in AD70.

Tertullian (AD 145-220): “And that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet MAY wage war on the Church of God…”(“On the Resurrection of the Flesh,Chapter 41).

Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).

Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a whose who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?

In His grace,--Jerry

knee-v
January 17th, 2003, 03:43 PM
I'm not trying to equate the early church fathers with the pharisees, but how did they miss the coming of the Messiah when they were living in the very time that Daniel said he would be around. It can happen.

I know you realize that men's opinions, creeds, etc. take a back seat to scripture. But as close as those men were to the first century, I can't help but see a 3 1/2 year triulation for those in Judea corresponding to the destruction of the Temple in AD70.

If I'm not mistaken, in at least one place the trib is said to be 42 months long. Let's see here. March of 67 through September of 70. Carry the 1. Um... Ah! 42 months. Now I know that that doesn't conclusively prove anything, being only one example, but the testimonies of scripture and history seem to scream preterism, church fathers or not.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 03:48 PM
Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.

Knight
January 17th, 2003, 04:01 PM
Jerry your post is so valuable and it has been something I have been thinking much about lately. Had the tribulation happened in 70AD all of history would reflect the event as such.

Of all the reasons that preterism falls totally bankrupt (and trust me there are MANY reasons (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379) ) the reason you have brought up is possibly one of the most damaging to preterism.

In no objective compelling way does history account for the tribulation as happening in 70AD.

Plain and simple! It didn't happen! Clearly had the tribulation happened as the way it was described by God Himself in the Bible history would have forever reflected it that way (or at least reflected in that way in a major way).

But then again there are actually people out there who deny the Holocaust actually happened and have wasted their entire life crafting reasons and explanations as to why we should all take them seriously. Likewise we have other people claiming the tribulation DID happen!Go figure!

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 04:13 PM
Dear Knight:

I have a question, and it is a sincere and honest one, what event described in the Olivet Discourse (up to verse 34) do you believe did not happen prior to or including AD70?

Jerry I would also sincerely ask that you refrain from answering this question. I would really like to hear Knight's opinion on this.

Knight
January 17th, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I have a question, and it is a sincere and honest one, what event described in the Olivet Discourse (up to verse 34) do you believe did not happen prior to or including AD70?

Jerry I would also sincerely ask that you refrain from answering this question. I would really like to hear Knight's opinion on this. I am not sure I understand your question, or maybe I just dont understand why you are asking what your asking. :confused: :confused:

By the way....

The tribulation didn't happen. It didn't!

Off to my weekend trip.... hope to be online as much as possible!

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 04:26 PM
Dear Knight:


I am not sure I understand your question, or maybe I just dont understand why you are asking what your asking.

Sure that is fair, so I will clarify both. First my question is asking you to look at Matthew 24:1-34, the passage from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation," and for you to give me a few specific examples of things you do not possibly believe came to pass. My reason for asking is simple... you have said that it did not happen, and I say that it did, and you have by kind of implicit comparision compared my belief with the beliefs of those who deny that the Holocaust happened. I am wondering if there are specific events described in that passage that you say could not possibly have occured, or if other factors outside of the passage have predetermined your belief without the need to get into this text. I believe that I can prove that the events did indeed happen but to narrow such an endeavor I was asking for specific verses from you to address. It is easy to say something that groups me in with a group of deluded people, but I would like to get specific, if you are willing. If not, alright, no offense taken, I know you too well to take it personally, I just would like to rap with you.


By the way....

The tribulation didn't happen. It didn't!

It did!! It did!!! Now we are even :p


Off to my weekend trip.... hope to be online as much as possible!


Have a great time and remember you are taking all of TOL with you....

Jerry Shugart
January 17th, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.

No one FORGOT about anything.There is an explanation as to why some of the early church fathers mistakenly appropriated the promises to Israel to the church.And if you will go to the thread "The MYTH that the Church is "Spiritual Israel" on the Eschathology Forum you will see exactly how that mistake came into being.

Now perhaps someone will explain why the early church fathers were in error when they taught that the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" remained in the future and were not fulfilled in 70AD.

After all,they were living at a time not too long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.Surely if that event represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist,they would be aware of such a fact!

So perhaps someone could explain how they could have been in error when they taught that the "great tribulation" and the antichrist did NOT happen in 70AD and remained in the future.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 04:46 PM
Jerry I saw your thread you referred to and it is a classic case of question begging. But if we say you are right for the sake of argument, you then have proven that close proximity to apostolic teachings does not insure against what you would believe is being gravely mistaken. I have no vested interest or great desire to convince you. It would take much more time than I have which I have to decide where to spend with multiple conversations. I await Knight's reply if he does want to rap about this, otherwise, that is cool with me too. I have a lot of other irons in the fire.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:41 PM
I see that Jerry has posted selected passages from selected Church fathers. The fact is that the early church had quite an ecclectic and at times highly confusing eschatolgy that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from either of us. I have abundant testimony that the early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, and with more to follow.....

Chrysostrom - "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." ( A.D. 347)

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (3rd Century)

Knight
January 17th, 2003, 08:43 PM
Dee Dee correct me if I am wrong... but don't you believe that the events foretold in the book on Revelation happened in 70AD? (or there abouts) :)

Knight
January 17th, 2003, 08:45 PM
Dee Dee your not really going to try to make the case that just as many people or church leaders or historians OR ANYBODY for that matter believed the Great Tribulation already happened as those that believed it hadn't happened already... are you?

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:47 PM
Dear Knight:

No you are not wrong. I do believe that the majority of the events in Revelation were fulfilled by 70AD or thereabouts. I also believe (as do you I think) that the Olivet Discourse is a parallel account to Revelation. But since the title of this thread was the "Great Tribulation" and that phrase is commonly taken from Jesus' words in Matthew 24, I was focusing on there.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:51 PM
Dee Dee your not really going to try to make the case that just as many people or church leaders or historians OR ANYBODY for that matter believed the Great Tribulation already happened as those that believed it hadn't happened already... are you?


Well as you should know, holding to a very minority position yourself, that head counts do not decide who's theology is right. So no, I would never try the vain exercise of trying to prove my point by a majority vote. But I can prove that there have been notable and significant adherants to the view that the Great Tribulation is past from the dawn of Christian history through the present. In fact, the commentaries of prominent scholars in the centuries preceeding the rise to popularity of dispensationalism held this view in the majority (by the way). This is not something that is generally disputed in the scholarly community.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:54 PM
And another -

Eusebius – It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground." And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvelously strange. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, it is not necessary to add anything to the account of the historian. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work. (A.D. 325)

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 08:58 PM
I could post tons of stuff that Eusebius wrote in his Ecclesiastical History but I think what I have posted suffices to prove my point with him. He had quite a well developd preterism for the time... considering the nascent state of eschatological formulations in general at that time.

Dee Dee Warren
January 17th, 2003, 09:23 PM
Athanasius – "And when He Who spake unto Moses, the Word of the Father, appeared in the end of the world, He also gave this commandment, saying, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another" [Matt. 10:231; and shortly after He says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes" [Matt. 24:15]. Knowing these things, the Saints regulated their conduct accordingly.”

"He was like those sent by the householder to receive the fruits of the vineyard from the husbandmen; for he exhorted all men to render a return. But Israel despised and would not render, for their will was not right, nay moreover they killed those that were sent, and not even before the Lord of the vineyard were they ashamed, but even He was slain by them. Verily, when He came and found no fruit in them, He cursed them through the fig-tree, saying, "Let there be henceforth no fruit from thee" [Matt. 21:191; and the fig-tree was dead and fruitless, so that even the disciples wondered when it withered away.

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet: "I will take away from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of a lamp, and the whole land shall be destroyed" [Jer. 25:10]. For the whole service of the law has been abolished from them, and henceforth and forever they remain without a feast."

"So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, "A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself." And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming "The law and the prophets prophesied until John." So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about?.. What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the Goddenyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. (296-372)


I have more quotes to prove my point from Cyprian (250AD), Hyppolytus (2nd-3rd century AD), Justin Martyr (150AD), Lactantius (3rd century AD), Tertullian (200AD - which quote says that the 70 weeks are fulfilled) - Do I need to post them or has mine point been sufficiently proven - the point being that there is very early testimony to prophetic fulfillment significance of the destruction of Jerusalem as it relates to the Discourse, to Daniel, and secondarily to Revelation.

OMEGA
January 18th, 2003, 03:44 AM
DDWARREN , You asked for a scripture on something that

did Not happen .

Here it is .

Does this not meet your parameters?

(Mat 24:30 KJV) "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

(Mat 24:31 KJV) "And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

:thumb:

OMEGA
January 18th, 2003, 04:03 AM
I cannot find the last part of your scripture of Jer 25:10 .

Where did you get that Verse from ??????

" For the Service of the Law has been abolished and henceforth

and Forever they remain without a Feast.

I cannot find it in any of my bibles .

----------------------------------------------

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet: "I
will take away from them the voice of joy and the voice of
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the
bride, the scent of myrrh, and the light of a lamp, and the
whole land shall be destroyed" [Jer. 25:10]. For the whole
service of the law has been abolished from them, and

henceforth and forever they remain without a feast."


---------------------------------------

(Jer 25:9 KJV) "Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations."

(Jer 25:10 KJV) "Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle."

(Jer 25:11 KJV) "And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

:angel:

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 08:21 AM
Dear Omega:

Actually my question was directed specifically to Knight if he has the time or interest to rap. I know he is very busy and that eschatology is not his primary interest.

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 08:24 AM
On Jeremiah 25:10, what I posted was a quote from Early Church Father Athanasius, not my own thoughts. And if you read what he wrote carefully, he is not claiming that sentence is a part of Jeremiah 25:10 he is saying his own thought there, apparently conflating several Biblical principles. Interesting though I find, is that his method of interpretation of these events is highly similar to mine in a lot of respects, and Athanasius is certainly a respected ECT who's tireless and zealous defense of the Trinity we are much indebted to.

Jerry Shugart
January 18th, 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I see that Jerry has posted selected passages from selected Church fathers. The fact is that the early church had quite an ecclectic and at times highly confusing eschatolgy that was far from developed into any level that would allow such dogmatic statements from either of us. I have abundant testimony that the early church fathers in fact did view the Olivet Discourse (from which we get the phrase "Great Tribulation") as being fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.

For example, and with more to follow.....

Chrysostrom - "Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." ( A.D. 347)

Origien - "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem." (3rd Century)

Dee Dee refuses to even answer why the EARLIEST church fathers did not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD represented the "great tribulation".

Instead,she quotes Chrysostrom,who lived more than TWO HUNDRED years AFTER the men I quoted,and Origen,who lived more than ONE HUNDRED years after the men I quoted.

She would assign equal weight to the testimony of these men,and this despite the fact that some of those who I quoted were the pupils of those who had studied under the author of the Revelation himself,the Apostle John.

Again,Dee Dee did not even attempt to explain how it is possible that those who lived the closest in time to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not believe that that event was the "great tribulation" nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time either.

Just think about it.If the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation",then is it not the strangest thing in all recorded history the fact that those who were the closest in time to that event were not even aware that it was the "great tribulation"?

Those who teach the "preterist" method of interpretation would have us throw our reason to the wind and believe their unbelievable idea that an event described as "great tribulation such as was not since the beginning of the world,no,nor shall ever be" came and went and the earliest church leaders were not even aware that it had come!

And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!

The following event came and went,and even those who had received their teaching from one who had studied directly under John were not even aware that it had already happened:

"...and there shall be time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation"(Dan.12:1).

How can that be?

None of the preterists have even attempted to answer!And who could blame them?

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 12:19 PM
Sigh. I did not post all of the quotes that I have... but since Jerry did quote Tertullian.. here is an interesting nugget from him (and notice he says that the 70 weeks are over):

"Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin."(7) And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader,(8) must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

"Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place "libations and sacrifices," which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated; for "the unction," too,(6) was "exterminated" in that place after the passion of Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place; as in the Psalms it is prophesied, "They exterminated my hands and feet."(7) And the suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April,(8) on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses.(9) Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our children;"(10) and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar;"(11) in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 12:25 PM
And notice this error of Jerry...


Those who lived closest to the time of AD70 and did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70 reads like a whose who of the early church fathers—Irenaeus,Tertullian,Hippolytus,Cyprian,Cyr
il of Jerusalem,John Chrysostom—the list goes on and on.How could all these men be in error concerning an event that was supposed to occur so close to the time in which they lived?


Notice that he included Chrystom and Cyrprian but I have quotes from them that agree with me. When I quote Chrystom... he lived too late, but when Jerry refers to him he is allegedly on of the creme de le creme. Jerry cannot have it both ways. I also quoted now Terullian... the fact is that the early church had a very confused and muddled eschatology which is demonstrated by the fact that Jerry and I can quote the very same people for both of our views. The fact is that men from the very same period of time had beliefs similar to mine and similar to futurists. The Church then was diverse as is the Church now.

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 12:27 PM
And the fact is also that I do assign equal weight to most of them.. as uninispired though interesting sources. My weight is assigned to the Scriptures.

Jerry Shugart
January 18th, 2003, 01:00 PM
Of course Dee Dee EVADED the words of Tertullian where he clearly expressed the idea that the Antichrist and his false prophet was not even in existence in 70AD.Instead,she posts some of his words that in no way nullifies his idea.

She just evades the question by using an obscurant argument and hopes that no one will notice.

She even demonstrates how blind she is in this matter when she admits that she assigns equal weight to the teaching of those who were taught directly by John´s disciples with the teaching of those who lived hundreds of years later.

And she has the nerve to say that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".

In fact,what she means is that her weight is assigned to her PERVERTED interpretation of the Scriptures.For instance,take the following verse,which is clearly in refernce to the "great tribulation":

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

A few verses later we see Him doing exactly that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when he fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

I provided Dee Dee with these verses,and I stated that in 70AD that "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In reply,Dee Dee said,"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

Has anyone ever read such a nightmare exegesis of Holy Scripture in their lives?The Lord says that He will fight against all the nations that come against Jerusalem and destroy them,but yet in order for her to cling to her false teaching she has the nerve to say that the Lord Jesus fought and lost in Jerusalem in 70AD!!!

So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.

And it is obvious that she will TWIST the Scriptures to make them say anything,no matter how profane.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 01:03 PM
Terullian had as I clearly stated a jumbled eschatology as did almost all of the ECF. Both Jerry and I can find support for our positions in his writings as well as the writings of others. An honest dealing with historical sources will yield no other conclusion. Tertullian clearly stated that he believed that the 70 weeks were over. I did not quote him to show that he was consistent, I quoted him to show that he and I shared some similar ideas as did I and many of the earliest church fathers. Spin-doctoring has no place in honest debate.

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 01:12 PM
So we can see that she will not answer how Irenaeus,who studied under a pupil of John,could have been in error.Instead,she wants us to believe that her final authority is the Holy Scriptures.


This is just stupid. Irenaeus also believed that Jesus died at fifty years old.....

For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

So obviously being a student of John did not preserve him from error.

And again, almost all of the ECF assigned all of the promises to Israel to the Church. Now Jerry has an excuse for that in that he claims that they assigned such great weight to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD that they thought that God permanently cut off Israel. Now anyone with half a noodle can see how this undercuts the argument on this thread. If need be I can painfully point it out......

Jerry Shugart
January 18th, 2003, 01:32 PM
Yes,it is obvious that none of the early church leaders were without error.But it is a huge difference between knowing the age of the Lord when He dies and knowing if the antichrist had come already.

We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

We are supposed to believe that all of these prophecies came to pass,yet those who were so closely connected to the very man who wrote these prophecies were not even aware that they had already taken place!In fact,they were sure that they had not happened!

But some people will people will believe anything.Perhaps Dee Dee,who says that her final authority is the Scriptures,will tell us when these events took place.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 18th, 2003, 02:10 PM
We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:


Jerry has got his dancing shoes on, but nothing is new. Are we supposed to believe that Jesus really died in his thirties yet someone who studied under John denies that. Yes. I provided ECF testimony supporting my view. None of them agreed with me completely, and none of them agreed with futurism completely. The ECF had nothing near a developed eschatology and this is the honest, straw-free, assessment of history.

I have clear up this historical spin-doctoring which was my sole goal in bringing up the ECF.

Jerry Shugart
January 19th, 2003, 09:21 AM
Dee Dee now says that nothing the early church leaders said can be trusted.She says:

"My weight is assigned to the Scriptures."

That being the case,perhaps she will tell us when these following events took place.Now we can really see if her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures" or not:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 09:26 AM
And I have consistently told you Jerry that my substantial in depth Scriptural wrangling with you is over since you do not hold me to be a sister in Christ. You have mishandled the historical sources and I have proven that which was my sole goal in dealing with this thread of yours. And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted.

Jerry Shugart
January 19th, 2003, 09:59 AM
Dee Dee previously said that her eschatology was not derived from the early church but instead she says that her "weight is assigned to the Scriptures".Earlier she said,"the fact is that the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

So since the teaching of the early church in these matters cannot be trusted,I asked her to put her money where her mouth is.I asked her (since her eschatology is derived from the Scriptures) to give us her interpretation of the following verse:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first best before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that the events described in these verses have not yet taken place.And since Dee Dee has no place for these events in her eschatology,then she must somehow explain away these verses.

But now she refuses to do this.If her eschatology was based on the Scriptures,then it is obvious that she would have an explanation for these verses.

But instead of answering,she runs away as fast as she can!

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 10:05 AM
And please provide the quote where I say that nothing the early Church Fathers said can be trusted. Having a confused and muddled eschatology is nothing new, and would describe a great many Christians today. An honest assessment of the historical sources shows that both futurism and preterism have ancient adherents, sometimes within the same person. Thus the argument of history does not work that well against preterism, and I advise against using it. That point has been proven. Contra their muddled eschatology, the ECF were united in assigning the promises of Israel to the Church, including the student of John, Ireaneaus.

And the fact is that I have answered that question to numerous people here at TOL. The truth is that I do not have substantive Scriptural discussions with those who deny that I am saved.

Jerry Shugart
January 19th, 2003, 11:21 AM
When I used the word "nothing" in regard to what the early church fathers taught it was in reference to the subject of this thread--eschatology.

You yourself say that "the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology."

But if you want to argue that their doctrine was NOT muddled,I can quote many statements which demonstrate that their "doctrine" was also muddled.

But that does not change the fact in the least that you say that your eschatology is based on the Scriptures.And when you are given the chance to prove it,you run like a scared rabbit.

You say that you have previously answered the verses I provided.Well,I have never seen an explanation of those verses,and I am sure that others reading this thread now have likewise never read your explanation.

But since you refuse to give an answer,I will provide an example of your "muddled" explanation of the words of prophecy as recorded by Zechariah.The Lord Himself says:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."(Zech.12:9).

And verses that follow show Him doing just that:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;and the city shall be taken...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

You say that these verses refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD (since you have no place for them in your eschatology).You would have the Lord saying that HE will fight against all the nations,but you would have Him fighting in a loosing battle.In response,I said that in 70AD "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed."

In your response,you demonstrate your UNBELIEF in what the Holy Scriptures actually say and said:

"Really??Funny,most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

So we can see that in order to cling to your false eschatology you are willing to make the words where the Lord Jesus is seen fighting against the nations that came against Jerusalem into a TOTAL AND COMLETE DEFEAT!!!

You would rather cling to your false teaching,even if it is at the expense of the integrity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And now you are given an opportunity to give us your interpretation of other Scriptual passages that do not fit into your little man-made eschatology and you refuse.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 11:26 AM
I thank you then for revising your statement in order to correct your incorrect assertion that I said that NOTHING the ECF said could be trusted. But you still are inaccurate because I never said their eschatological statements could not be "trusted" either. I said that they were muddled, and thus could not be dogmatically used to support either preterism or futurism. So your spin is still incorrect, but at least you are moving closer to an accurate assessment of history. I am satisfied knowing that I smacked it down enough that you will not hastily use that very poor argument again in the future.

And yes I refuse to get into substantive Scriptural debate with you since you do not view me as a sister in the Lord. What part of that sentence do you find unintelligible?

Jerry Shugart
January 19th, 2003, 12:07 PM
Let me see.You will discuss some things with me,such as the testimony of the early church fathers,but you ill not discuss substantive Scriptual issues with me!

You now say that you never said that the teaching of the early church fathers cannot be trusted,even though you did say that their teaching was "muddled".So all I can get out of this is the fact that in the future you will TRUST the part of their testimony that fits your ideas and discard the rest.Seems about in line with the way you operate.

You take the Scriptures which you think support your views and discard those which are in direct conflict with your teaching.You only prove that you will say anything in order to AVOID discussing these issues.

And you say that you smacked down my argument,when in fact you did no such thing.You only demonstrate that you an turn a "victory" into a defeat,just as you did in regard to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures where the Lord Jesus said:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

That event is the same event which Paul describes in the following verse:

"And so all Israel shall be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion a Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

But according to your misguided teaching,the time when the Lord DELIVERED the Jews was no DELIVERANCE at all.You say that this refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was totally and utterly destroyed.

Repent from your false teaching,Dee Dee.Turn from your man-made theology and turn to what the Scriptures actually say.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 19th, 2003, 12:13 PM
Yes, Jerry it is a judgment call. You mishandled history and I cleared that up. That is not that difficult. Your semantical games with the ECF are not worth any more of my time. You continually misrepresent people who do not agree with you and that is just sad. I do not just "trust" the part of the ECF that agree with me, any honest reader of my posts will see that I gave equal recognition to both their preterist and futurist views, and did not emphasize one to the total expense of the other as you did. And I did not clear it up for you benefit but for the benefit of the readership since this is a common argument, and I do not think I ever really dealt with it at TOL before so it was worthwhile. You need to repent of your unjust judgment of the salvation of your sister in Christ. That is a serious, serious sin indeed.

Jerry Shugart
January 19th, 2003, 01:06 PM
I believe that it is no "sin" to rebuke those who deny the plain words of Holy Scripture and pervert them so that they match their false theology.After all,is not the Christian told to do just that?:

"Preach the word;be diligent in season,out of season;reprove,REBUKE,exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine,but,after their own lusts,shall the heap to themselves teachers,having itching ears;and THEY SHALL TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH,AND SHALL BE TURNED INTO FABLES"(2Tim.4:2-4).

And one of the FABLES that these preople teach is the idea that the following prophesised events have already come to pass:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious that this event has not yet come to pass.But those who teach the FABLES say that it has.However,when asked to give their interpretation of these verses,THEY REFUSE!!!

They just go about their merry ways pretending as if these verses do not even exist.They attempt to find any EXCUSE in order that they can IGNORE those Scriptual passages so that they can continue to teach their false eschatology.

In His grace,--Jerry

Jerry Shugart
January 20th, 2003, 11:05 AM
Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 20th, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Well as you should know, holding to a very minority position yourself, that head counts do not decide who's theology is right. So no, I would never try the vain exercise of trying to prove my point by a majority vote. But I can prove that there have been notable and significant adherants to the view that the Great Tribulation is past from the dawn of Christian history through the present. In fact, the commentaries of prominent scholars in the centuries preceeding the rise to popularity of dispensationalism held this view in the majority (by the way). This is not something that is generally disputed in the scholarly community. Dee Dee, with all due respect I think you are grossly missing the point.

Holding a minority position regarding theology is one thing. Indeed a minority position could be just as "right" or just as "wrong" as a majority position.

But that really isn't what is up for debate here.

We are talking about an event that is not solely theological in nature.

Had the Great Tribulation happened it wouldn't be only noticed by theologians. All of the world would had been forever changed from that point on.

For instance.... It would be very difficult for any person to make a compelling argument that WWII DIDN'T happen. Mainly because WWII effected almost every major nation and society on earth. The evidence for WWII is overwhelming in a multitude of forms (physical evidence, historical, traditional, lore etc.)

How Much more would have the Great Tribulation effected the world?

Just imagine.... had the Great Tribulation ACTUALLY HAPPENED in 70AD the events that would have transpired would have been recorded in a variety of ways by every culture and society on the planet! Just as the events and evidence from the great flood are available to this very day in a variety of forms from almost EVERY SINGLE society on the face of this planet! (not just the Jewish and Christian societies - as you well know).

Clearly an event such as the Great Tribulation transpiring would get noticed by more than a handful of Preterists.

This is not JUST a theological debate. The Great Tribulation didn't happen. It didn't! And it is silly and embarrassing to think otherwise.

P.S. Some of those arguments about us not landing on the moon are pretty clever when you don't step back and look at the "Big Picture".

Dee Dee Warren
January 20th, 2003, 02:46 PM
Hey Knight!! I hope you had a fantastic trip... and if you really took all of TOL with you, why don't I feel like I got away for the weekend :noid: I will get back with you as soon as I can on your points.

Knight
January 20th, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
why don't I feel like I got away for the weekend You were still working hard deep within my laptop.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

In His grace,--Jerry Great point and excellent question.

Solly
January 21st, 2003, 05:13 AM
This is the problem I have here.

Firstly I should say I am not praeterist as DD is; while I believe that most of Matt 24 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, I am not conviced that Rev refers primarily to 1st cent issues.

So, Matt 24.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The end of the world was Rome. The Gospel was preached there. Ever read Asimov's Foundation trilogy, where they are looking for the Second Foundation at Star's End? Stars End turned out to be Trantor, the Capital Planet of the Empire. All roads lead to Rome, and all roads have two ends.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

A case has been made for this being the Roman assualt on Jerusalem, and the events in the temple re the insurgent factions.

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Now DD makes a great deal about time delimiters. Well here we have a space delimiter: Judea. And local conditions relevant to an escape from Jerusalem.

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.

And so we have our phrase. Which obviously, in the context of the passage refers to events in Judea; before you go on to any other matter, be it the events themselves, or cross references to Revelation, this fact has to be recognised. The reference is to events in Judea. Therefore the term Great is relative; there is no definite article in the greek, it reads: "tribulation great".
And of course nothing had been seen like it: the Jewish administration brought to a resounding end, in bloodshed and wrath, greater even than when Israel was taken into exile, for at least a people were left in the land, and administered from Babylon. This is final: computer, end programme.

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

DD has dealt elsewhere with the fact of where Jesus is coming to.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

Eagles? Just coincidence that the Roman legions used Eagles as mascots I suppose.

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Again, any reading of OT texts will show that this is justified hyperbole, along the lines of mountains melting, trees clapping, and hills skipping. Also justified imagery, in referring to powers and authorities among men as hills and mountain, and trees of lebanon, etc.

From this point, I am of the opinion that the text moves into teaching relevant to the end of the age before Christ's return, but I can follow the argument that even this is for 70ad.

In conclusion, the Disp system has taken the phrase "Great Tribulation" and filled it with a lot a theological content re the End of the World. Having done so, it tries to place this now bloated phrase back into its position, but finds that it is like trying to get a quart into a pint pot as afar as 70ad is concerned, so - ah ha! -it must fit elsewhere, and does so dragging Matt 24 with it.
This is wrongly dividing scriputure.

I am led to the conclusion that the DispFut system leaves you so left behind, that you cannot see right ahead.

peace in Him

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 06:21 AM
Hey Solly... would you be interest in quick little rap with me about the "end of the age"? We started this once but never really followed through. Can you go over to the "Dee Dee convert me to preterism" thread and read (I think it is my last post) on the chronology of the ages and tell me where you would shoot my chronology down? No one has yet to mount a coherent argument against it, but rather just brings in "yeah but" verses that never interact with mine. That is quite frustrating.

Jerry Shugart
January 21st, 2003, 09:32 AM
All I hear are the crickets and the footsteps of those running away as fast as they can so that they will not have to address the following SCripture passages.

Why do the preterists refuse to tell us when the following events came to pass?:

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"(Rev.12-17).

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.However,those who say that they have already occured will not tell us when they did occur.They say that their ideas are based on the Holy Scriptures,but when given a chance to prove what they say,they refuse!

They woulod rather remain confused and lead others to their same confusion state than to face the verses which prove that their teaching is in error.

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of spiritual understanding that these things have NOT yet happened.

In His grace,--Jerry Jerry I would like to correct you if I may.

One wouldn't need "spiritual understanding" to determine these things have NOT happened. As I have stated before.... had the Great Tribulation happened its events would have been woven into world history in a dramatic way regardless of a societies religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Preterism painfully fails biblically (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379) but far more damaging to preterism is its complete absence in world history.

The Great Tribulation didn't happen. It didn't! :)

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 12:24 PM
Dear Knight:


Dee Dee, with all due respect I think you are grossly missing the point.

And I am glad for you starting in that manner for I hope that my response is also filled with the same mutual respect that we share.


We are talking about an event that is not solely theological in nature.

Agreed.


Had the Great Tribulation happened it wouldn't be only noticed by theologians. All of the world would had been forever changed from that point on.

Ah but here is where I believe that you are grossly missing the point. You obviously believe that the Great Tribulation is planet-wide in scope, and then have taken your presuppositions to judge the alleged incredulity of my position that the Great Tribulation has already happened as being equivalent to someone who holds that that Holocaust did not happen. This is completely illegitimate, and is very similar in principle to the misconceptions that some perpetrate about the OV. Let me explain. I often hear the uninformed say that OV limits the power of God from knowing the future, and turn the argument into one soley based on whether or not God is omnipotent. But you and I both know that is a complete straw man. The argument is not soley over whether or not God could know a knowable future, but whether the future exists to be known in any meaningful way. Thus the argument is not about the nature of God per se, but about the nature of the future. Thus the nonOV attempts to make the OV look silly and ridiculous soley on those grounds are founded on complete beds of straw.

By analogy that is what you are doing to me, though I believe it is inadvertent due to misunderstanding. I do not believe that the Great Tribulation was planet-wide in scope for the very reasons that Solly has articulated and I will articulate again. Thus, you cannot right judge me as an ignoramus of the sort that would deny that the Holocaust happened because I allegedly can accept the absence of worldwide testimony to this catastrophe, when I don’t believe it was worldwide to begin with!! You need to start from my presuppositions to judge whether or not I am being realistic about the amount of evidence required. Since I believe it is a catastrophic judgment limited to Judea…. I do have ample historical evidence contained within the writings of the ECF and more particularly Josephus’ Jewish Wars which reads in many place like it was written straight out of Matthew 24. Thus the issue is not over the lack of worldwide evidence, the issue is over the nature and scope of the Great Tribulation which is a Scriptural issue, and not one of how historically gullible that I allegedly am.

Now briefly to recap why I do not believe it is a planetwide catastrophe…..

I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones. First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?

It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:

Matthew 24:15 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.

Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:
Now briefly to recap why I do not believe it is a planetwide catastrophe?..
LOL! Of course you have to minimize the Great Tribulation!

Your entire theology relies on such minimization!

- We DID land on the moon.
- The Holocaust DID happen.
- The earth isn't flat.
- Crop circles are an admitted hoax.
- The Great Tribulation DIDN'T happen (yet).

Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.

One would think an event such as described above might get more than a one sentence description in a common encyclopedia. :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 12:47 PM
Dear Knight -

Hey I am running out the door...... But I think you now see my point that the comparision is unjust. The issue is not over the scope and nature of my allegedly historical gullibility but over the scope and nature of the Great Tribulation. The precise defining of issues in dispute is critical to fair exchange and debating. But on the verse you posited....

Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say “nor shall ever be.” This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic “language” of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that “language.” Jesus’ language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

That is describing a PAST event. If we are going to be woodenly literal here a large contradiction has just been unearthed in Scripture. Now the context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. This is explained through prophetic hyperbole and proverbial. This same language is used in Exodus 11:6 - even the futurists believe that there will be a greater anguish and cry in Egypt in the Great Tribulation.

Josephus also describes the loss of Jerusalem in similar language (proving it is common first century idiom) – “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been he greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.”

Additionally, it is the reason and repercussions of this judgment that make it the greatest ever. “Greatest” is not measured solely in terms of lives lost, but in terms of eternal significance. This was the greatest loss that could ever happen to the Jewish people. They recognized that the removal of the Temple was the ultimate sign of God’s judgment and the worst possible calamity that could ever happen to them. This was the ultimate judgment upon ethnic Israel, it has never been worse, and it will not never be worse. It was God’s covenant lawsuit against them. The culmination of the curses of Deut. 28.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 12:49 PM
P.S. Dee Dee if you would like to debate God's foreknowledge with me just say so! :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 12:55 PM
LOLOL!!! Maybe some day Sir Knight, maybe some day. :D

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight -

Hey I am running out the door...... But I think you now see my point that the comparision is unjust. The issue is not over the scope and nature of my allegedly historical gullibility but over the scope and nature of the Great Tribulation. The precise defining of issues in dispute is critical to fair exchange and debating. But on the verse you posited....OK if that paragraph made sense to anyone please send me a translation. ;)

You continue....
Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say ?nor shall ever be.? This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic ?language? of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that ?language.? Jesus? language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9- That is a completely flawed line of thinking! I am shocked I even read it! Totally illogical! The Great Tribulation was described as an event without equal.... there is no reason to think otherwise. There is no logical reason that after the event was over another event like it would never happen again for an eternity.

In fact... for this very reason... preterism fails miserably! Since we know for a fact that many events have happened since the the destruction of Jerusalem that have been FAAARRRRRR worse in every respect.

Furthermore....
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

The figure of speech wouldn't mean the event was a minor blip in the radar of world history.

Clearly an event such as....
Revelation 9:18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed' by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.Would be noticed by more than a handful of preterists.

Oh... maybe "a third of mankind was killed" is another figure of speech?

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
LOLOL!!! Maybe some day Sir Knight, maybe some day. :D Oh please.... bring it on.. bring it on!

In the meantime answer Jerry's question. :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 01:42 PM
Dear Knight:

I am at work but I will further get to your response to my last post soon. On the one passage brought up by Jerry that you referenced, I have answered that one in the past... and I am not going to go round and round with Jerry at this point. Perhaps when I have more time not dedicated to other issues (and life in general), but I do have to make choices in some places. This one discussion with you however, I am finding very interesting.

Jerry Shugart
January 21st, 2003, 03:37 PM
Actually,the early church did not think that the descruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation".It was not until "the crushing defeat in the later Bar Kokhba war...the early church began to speak of the hand of God´s judgment on Judaism.Little reference to this idea is found in Christian writings following the first revolt in A.D. 66-70"(Richardson,"Israel in the Apolostic Church",p.36).

The following is a description of the events concerning the Bar Kokhba War:

"The Bar Kokhba revolt marked a time of high hopes followed by violent despair. The Jews were handed expectations of a homeland and a Holy Temple, but in the end were persecuted and sold into slavery. During the revolt itself, the Jews gained enormous amounts of land, only to be pushed back and crushed in the final battle of Bethar.
When Hadrian first became the Roman emperor in 118 C.E., he was sympathetic to the Jews. He allowed them to return to Jerusalem and granted permission for the rebuilding of their Holy Temple. The Jews’ expectations rose as they made organizational and financial preparations to rebuild the temple. Hadrian quickly went back on his word, however, and requested that the site of the Temple be moved from its original location. He also began deporting Jews to North Africa.
The Jews prepared to rebel until Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah calmed them. The Jews then satisfied themselves with preparing secretly in case a rebellion would later become necessary. They built hideouts in caves and did shoddy work building weapons so that the Romans would reject the weapons and return them to the Jews.
The Jews organized guerilla forces and, in 123 C.E., began launching surprise attacks against the Romans. From that point on, life only got worse for the Jews. Hadrian brought an extra army legion, the "Sixth Ferrata," into Judea to deal with the terrorism. Hadrian hated "foreign" religions and forbade the Jews to perform circumcisions. He appointed Tinneius Rufus governor of Judea. Rufus was a harsh ruler who took advantage of Jewish women. In approximately 132 C.E., Hadrian began to establish a city in Jerusalem called Aelia Capitolina, the name being a combination of his own name and that of the Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus. He started to build a temple to Jupiter in place of the Jewish Holy Temple.
As long as Hadrian remained near Judea, the Jews stayed relatively quiet. When he left in 132, the Jews began their rebellion on a large scale. They seized towns and fortified them with walls and subterranean passages. Under the strong leadership of Shimon Bar-Kokhba, the Jews captured approximately 50 strongholds in Palestine and 985 undefended towns and villages, including Jerusalem. Jews from other countries, and even some gentiles, volunteered to join their crusade. The Jews minted coins with slogans such as "The freedom of Israel" written in Hebrew. Hadrian dispatched General Publus Marcellus, governor of Syria, to help Rufus, but the Jews defeated both Roman leaders. The Jews then invaded the coastal region and the Romans began sea battles against them.
The turning point of the war came when Hadrian sent into Judea one of his best generals from Britain, Julius Severus, along with former governor of Germania, Hadrianus Quintus Lollius Urbicus. By that time, there were 12 army legions from Egypt, Britain, Syria and other areas in Palestine. Due to the large number of Jewish rebels, instead of waging open war, Severus besieged Jewish fortresses and held back food until the Jews grew weak. Only then did his attack escalate into outright war. The Romans demolished all 50 Jewish fortresses and 985 villages. The main conflicts took place in Judea, the Shephela, the mountains and the Judean desert, though fighting also spread to Northern Israel. The Romans suffered heavy casualties as well and Hadrian did not send his usual message to the Senate that "I and my army are well."
The final battle of the war took place in Bethar, Bar-Kokhba's headquarters, which housed both the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) and the home of the Nasi (leader). Bethar was a vital military stronghold because of its strategic location on a mountain ridge overlooking both the Valley of Sorek and the important Jerusalem-Bet Guvrin Road. Thousands of Jewish refugees fled to Bethar during the war. In 135 C.E., Hadrian's army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead.
Following the battle of Bethar, there were a few small skirmishes in the Judean Desert Caves, but the war was essentially over and Judean independence was lost. The Romans plowed Jerusalem with a yoke of oxen. Jews were sold into slavery and many were transported to Egypt. Judean settlements were not rebuilt. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country's name from Judea to Syria Palestina.
In the years following the revolt, Hadrian discriminated against all Judeo-Christian sects, but the worst persecution was directed against religious Jews. He made anti-religious decrees forbidding Torah study, Sabbath observance, circumcision, Jewish courts, meeting in synagogues and other ritual practices. Many Jews assimilated and many sages and prominent men were martyred including Rabbi Akiva and the rest of the Asara Harugei Malchut (ten martyrs). This age of persecution lasted throughout the remainder of Hadrian's reign, until 138 C.E.

Sources: Encyclopedia Judaica. "Bar Kokhba". Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem."

So we can see that the early church did not even consider the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD as God´s final judgment on Jerusalem.Therefoe,it is obvious that the early church did not believe that the destruction of Jerusalem was the "great tribulation".

But perhaps they were all wrong,and Dee Dee is right.

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I am at work but I will further get to your response to my last post soon. On the one passage brought up by Jerry that you referenced, I have answered that one in the past... and I am not going to go round and round with Jerry at this point. Perhaps when I have more time not dedicated to other issues (and life in general), but I do have to make choices in some places. This one discussion with you however, I am finding very interesting. OK... since you claim you have already answered Jerry's question.... how about you copy and paste your previously written answer here.

Or you could point me DIRECTLY to the previous answer so I can review it.

Or... maybe another preterist would like to answer it.

I think at this point simply saying "it has already been answered" is about as close as one can get to throwing the towel as I have ever seen.

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 04:31 PM
Dear Knight:

I will try and find where it is posted at.. I suspect it is somewhere in the tortuously long "Greetings" thread, and unfortunately I did not save it as a text file. But, if I cannot find it, when I catch up with other obligations I will provide that answer to you.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I will try and find where it is posted at.. I suspect it is somewhere in the tortuously long "Greetings" thread, and unfortunately I did not save it as a text file. But, if I cannot find it, when I catch up with other obligations I will provide that answer to you. Very nice.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 05:17 PM
Any other preterists want to chime in on this stuff? Or is Dee Dee our lone crop circle hold out?

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 05:18 PM
Cool. I will let you know. And if I cannot locate it, I will write something. I need to have something at hand as a text file anyways so this is useful for me to do.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 05:28 PM
Since Dee Dee is very busy I am curious as to what other preterists might say in response to this post of mine which was getting lost in the shuffle.....


Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight -

Okay, you had objected that Jesus said that the Tribulation of those days was to be the worst of what had already happened and what would happen in the future. Notice, that this very statement makes it impossible to be an event that happens at the end of history for there would have been no reason for Jesus to say ?nor shall ever be.? This is obviously an event in the stream of normal history.
Jesus was speaking in the prophetic ?language? of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that ?language.? Jesus? language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9- That is a completely flawed line of thinking! I am shocked I even read it! Totally illogical! The Great Tribulation was described as an event without equal.... there is no reason to think otherwise. There is no logical reason that after the event was over another event like it would never happen again for an eternity.

In fact... for this very reason... preterism fails miserably! Since we know for a fact that many events have happened since the the destruction of Jerusalem that have been FAAARRRRRR worse in every respect.

Furthermore....
Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

The figure of speech wouldn't mean the event was a minor blip in the radar of world history.

Clearly an event such as....
Revelation 9:18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed' by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.Would be noticed by more than a handful of preterists.

Oh... maybe "a third of mankind was killed" is another figure of speech?

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 05:32 PM
Knight, that one is in my pile to get to somewhat soon.... it will not take much time. But by all means, I would love to hear the opinions of other preterists on that.

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Knight, that one is in my pile to get to somewhat soon.... it will not take much time. But by all means, I would love to hear the opinions of other preterists on that.

Well Dee Dee, I was going to let you take this (because you do it so well :D), but I will be glad to chime in. Right now I am in the middle of cooking supper and can't stay long enough to give the question the treatment it deserves.

When I am finished with supper (and if my wife lets me
:o ), I will try to make the time to answer this question.

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 06:28 PM
Knight:

While I have a little time let me make sure what question you want answered. I assume that you want an explanation of how something that sounds as devastating as the Great Trib. could be the simple destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will assume this is the issue to be discussed.

Thanks,

Faramir
Fellow Steward of Christ

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 06:33 PM
People will travel so far to purchase a lemon. And when they do.... they scream and argue that it really isn't a lemon. Generally people feel so bad that they bought the lemon in the first place they spend the rest of their life attempting to convince everyone else to buy a lemon just like theirs. ;)

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Knight
People will travel so far to purchase a lemon. And when they do.... they scream and argue that it really isn't a lemon. Generally people feel so bad that they bought the lemon in the first place they spend the rest of their life attempting to convince everyone else to buy a lemon just like theirs. ;)

Yes, but some of us finally admit we have a lemon, and find something solid and dependable :p

Maybe there is hope for you yet :D

Former Dipensationalist,
Faramir

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
Knight:

While I have a little time let me make sure what question you want answered. I assume that you want an explanation of how something that sounds as devastating as the Great Trib. could be the simple destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

If I don't hear otherwise from you, I will assume this is the issue to be discussed.

Thanks,

Faramir
Fellow Steward of Christ You can answer these two points....

When did the following events occur:

"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed "

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"

Oh and just so you know.... when your done spiritualizing the above two passages I have about 8 thousand other reasons why The Great Tribulation has not already occurred. Happy hunting! :D

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
Former Dipensationalist,
Faramir Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"? Yet not a single preterist I have run into even knows what dispensationalism is really all about? (no offense Dee Dee but its painfully obvious)

Kinda like every atheist I run into claims to be a former Christian. :rolleyes:

jpholding
January 21st, 2003, 06:51 PM
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

weblinks deleted...

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP

jpholding
January 21st, 2003, 06:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knight
Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"?

Not really, considering the strangehold that dispensationalism has on popular literature -- fiction and non-fiction alike. Er, if the latter can truly be said to exist for that point of view...at any rate it's bound to be the view people hear first and believe first as a whole.

JP

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

weblinks deleted....

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP Oh goody another super informative post from Mr. Holding.

I have already warned you before on two other occasions that we do not allow people to simply send our visitors to another website (especially when its their own). If you have a point to make, please make it. If you don't have a point to make please spare us the bandwidth. If you would like to add your web links along with your point as a further reference then that is fine.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by jpholding

Originally posted by Knight
Isn't odd that every preterist claims to be a former "dispensationalist"?

Not really, considering the strangehold that dispensationalism has on popular literature -- fiction and non-fiction alike. Er, if the latter can truly be said to exist for that point of view...at any rate it's bound to be the view people hear first and believe first as a whole.

JP Further proving my point that preterists haven't a clue as to what dispensationalism is all about. Thanks for the demonstration JP!

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

links deleted

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP

Thanks JP you da man!!!

Like I said I will try to answer the best I can. Revelation isn't really my forte, neither is Daniel, but I will attempt an answer tonight if I have time.

And before anyone accuses me of making an excuse, I have said elswhere on this board (one of my very first post) that I am weak in Revelation, but the best way to get strong is to work out. :thumb:

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 07:30 PM
Just so ya'all know I will continue to delete the shameless plugs for other websites.

And if this offense continues with certain individuals they will be banned from TOL.

You can use weblinks as references to the points you make HERE (at TOL) but you cannot simply let a weblink speak for you. That isn't how TheologyOnLine works. TheologyOnLine is a point vs. counter point debate forum that has been in place since our inception.

Isn't that right Dee Dee? TOL moderator?

Lion
January 21st, 2003, 07:51 PM
I find it interesting how the preterists are strictly and woodenly, word for word, literalist on some issues (the ones they have to read into them to make their points), and yet vastly liberal with spiritualizing others, that don’t go along with their theology?

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 08:04 PM
Well here goes.


Originally posted by Knight
You can answer these two points....

When did the following events occur:

"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed "

"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name"

Oh and just so you know.... when your done spiritualizing the above two passages I have about 8 thousand other reasons why The Great Tribulation has not already occurred. Happy hunting! :D

I think that Dee Dee as already answered this earlier in this thread:


Jesus was speaking in the prophetic “language” of the OT prophet. Hyperbole and dramatic emphasis were stock and trade of that “language.” Jesus’ language is nearly identical to Ezekiel 5:9-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

That is describing a PAST event. If we are going to be woodenly literal here a large contradiction has just been unearthed in Scripture. Now the context of this passage is the Jews and Jerusalem. But even the futurists believe that the future Great Tribulation will be worse than that. This is explained through prophetic hyperbole and proverbial. This same language is used in Exodus 11:6 - even the futurists believe that there will be a greater anguish and cry in Egypt in the Great Tribulation.

Josephus also describes the loss of Jerusalem in similar language (proving it is common first century idiom) – “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been he greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.”


The Revelation is written with apocalyptic language which is characterized by symbolism, hyperbole, and superlative language (just like much of OT prophecy). Any first century Jew would recognize that. And since it was written by a first century Jew, maybe we should try to read it through the eyes of one.

The Josephus quote above, is similar to Jesus' description of the tribulation. Could it be possible that they are describing the same event. This use of apocalyptic language is also clearly found in Revelation.

I hate to have most of my post being a quote of Dee Dee, but she said what I would have said (only much better). The above quote applies equally to Revelation as it does to the OD. This was brought up by Dee Dee, but never really addressed by any Dispensationalist.

This post is already to long. I will continue with a new post.

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 08:22 PM
Continued from last post:

Knight in an earlier post you claimed that the Preterist "spiritualized" Revelation. Like "spirtualizing" is automatically bad.

When reading anything, it is important to take the work in context. Revelation was written by a first century Jew, largely in apocalyptic language. A style that is characterized by hyperbole, superlative language, and symbolism (although some things like time indicators are intended to be taken literally when used in context with apocalyptic writing :p) . So what you refer to as "spirtualizing" is actually reading the text as it was intended to be read.

Do you believe that all OT prophecies that talk about stars falling, and the sun going dark are referring to future events? If not, then you must not take those literally. If you do not take those literally, than why do you insist on taking Revelation (which is written in a similar style) literally.

I really hoped to give a more detailed response, but I really need to see to family matters. I will try to respond further tomorrow.

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Lion
I find it interesting how the preterists are strictly and woodenly, word for word, literalist on some issues (the ones they have to read into them to make their points), and yet vastly liberal with spiritualizing others, that don’t go along with their theology?

And this is different from futurist how?:confused:

Lion
January 21st, 2003, 08:29 PM
Now I believe, according to the preterists, that the idea is that the whole Revelation thing was God’s judgment against just the ethnic, unbelieving Jews of the first century?
Rev 12:17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.Oh wait a minute, that isn't unbelieving, ethnic Israel? What gives?
Rev 13:4-8 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation. All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.The saints? Now dog-gone-it the only saints at that time should have been believers of Christ. What about those poor neglected unbelieving, ethnic Jews?

Faramir
January 21st, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Oh goody another super informative post from Mr. Holding.

I have already warned you before on two other occasions that we do not allow people to simply send our visitors to another website (especially when its their own). If you have a point to make, please make it. If you don't have a point to make please spare us the bandwidth. If you would like to add your web links along with your point as a further reference then that is fine.

FYI I did not need a link to JP's web site. I am already very familiar with it. It was a link from his web site that introduced me to TOL (Everyone give JP a big thank-you:D )

It was also JP's writing (and Dee Dee's on his site) on preterism that turned me from a former dispy leaning toward preterism to a full fledged preterist. :thumb:

(It was Tim LeHay's writing that initially turned me from a dispy into a former dispy. My how that man can twist scripture;) )

Dee Dee Warren
January 21st, 2003, 08:37 PM
Just so ya'all know I will continue to delete the shameless plugs for other websites.

And if this offense continues with certain individuals they will be banned from TOL.

You can use weblinks as references to the points you make HERE (at TOL) but you cannot simply let a weblink speak for you. That isn't how TheologyOnLine works. TheologyOnLine is a point vs. counter point debate forum that has been in place since our inception.

Isn't that right Dee Dee? TOL moderator?



Yes that is correct Knight. As you know JP is a good friend of mine, so I emailed him and asked him not post links in that fashion.

Now on another note in general, it is quite easy to keep bringing up question after question, and a good game of bombardment can wear anyone out, but I am not sure that is the best way to have a mutually edifying conversation/discussion/and yes debate. I am planning on answering further Knight's very specific Tribulation question, and then I will move on from there as time permits between cyber-world and real world.

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Faramir


And this is different from futurist how?:confused: Let me guess....

You have been misinformed that futurism is the only alternative to preterism?

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
Well here goes.

I think that Dee Dee as already answered this earlier in this thread:

The Revelation is written with apocalyptic language which is characterized by symbolism, hyperbole, and superlative language (just like much of OT prophecy). Any first century Jew would recognize that. And since it was written by a first century Jew, maybe we should try to read it through the eyes of one. Oh I get it.... apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists.

Tell us Faramir.... how can you tell the following verse isn't "apocalyptic language"?
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. - Matthew 24:34Fair question?

As soon as you appeal to "apocalyptic language" you throw out the best argument the preterists have again the futurists (which by the way I am not a futurist - pre se)

Knight
January 21st, 2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
(It was Tim LeHay's writing that initially turned me from a dispy into a former dispy. My how that man can twist scripture;) ) Again... it is painfully obvious that preterists have no clue as to what dispensationalism is all about.

Let me clue you in a little Faramir... Dee Dee doesn't know much about Dispensationalism, JP doesn't know much about Dispensationalism and Tim LeHay doesn't know much about Dispensationalism. If you would like an ultra quick overview... click here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=440)

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 03:54 AM
Dear Knight and Faramir:

Hey to clear something up and set the record straight on one thing. I was in fact a dispensationalist, but..... I was not at all the type of dispesenatiolist that Knight or Lion is, and I have readily conceded that I never heard of a lot of the distinctives of their particular flavor of dispensationalism until rather recently. But that does not mean I was not a dispensationalist for dispensationalism is not monolithic. But as I said before on another thread, compared to the type of dispensationalism that Knight is advocating, I was certainly dispenational lite.

Now onto to their being alternatives to preterism besides futurism, sure there are. They are called historicism and idealism. Now I know that Knight does not consider himself to be a futurist, and certainly people are free to choose their own designations, but I would respectfully submit that for all practical purposes he is indeed a futurist. He has some different reasons one some passages for projecting events into the future, but the whole concept of the passages being in the future is the heart and sole of futurism, not the reason for them being there.

In simple language a futurist is something who believes that the events of the Discourse and Revelation are to find fulfilment in the future. That is what Knight believes, thus, simply put he is a futurist. However, with the Discourse and Gospels, as discussed with Lion both Knight and Lion are exegetical preterists in that they accept that Jesus was clearly teaching that a major eschatological event was to happen in the lifetimes of the disciples, but it was postponed. However, neither Knight or Lion, quite arbitrarily I believe, accept the near timing references that appear in the epistles but rather claim the fictious imminency doctrine just as any futurist would. That is why I said to Lion.... "it is at this point that you morph into a typical futurist, and claim that the apostles did not know when God would resume working with Israel so they treated it as if it could happen any minute. "

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 04:12 AM
I might equally point out, that a full working knowledge of dispensationalism, in whatever brand, is not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is an understanding of scripture. The truth will out, as they say. How many of us have a deep understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Communism, marxism, Existentialism, PostModernism, Nihilism, Wicca, 1001 subChristian cults, Arianism, Nesotianism, Modalism, Arminianism, Calvinsim, OVTism, Dispensationalism Unitarianism, Liberalism, etc etc etc.

So that as far as using the "you don't understand ****-ism properly" argument is concerned, I think I could just as easily use it against those who continue to caricature Calvinism as determinism. Such statements do not forward the discussion at all, but rather prejudice it. I have refrained from caricaturing Arminianism, for instance. Neither is anything gained by the resort to "Oh, but HE doesn't understand MY dispensationalism, so that isn't a valid comment".

There seems to be a lot of thrashing one particular view, while giving very little in return in a lot of the debates on TOL. I have given up on a lot, because having answered a question, I am immediatly presented with another six excerpts from scripture to comment on, and yet none of my questions have been addressed, as if I am on trial for heresy.

If you think your view is being misrepresented, then represent it, in the debate.

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Oh I get it.... apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists.

As soon as you appeal to "apocalyptic language" you throw out the best argument the preterists have again the futurists (which by the way I am not a futurist - pre se)

Oon the same common sense basis of discerning diferent text styles, you would expect us to take the following passage as part apocalyptic symbolism and actual event. Unless a bit Mutha monster IS going to rise out of the sea, followed by another out of the earth? there is such a thing as taking apocalyptic imagery literally as apocalyptic imagery.

Chapter 13

1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

And on another matter, it is only the dispie schema that has a problem with reconciling Matt 24 and Rev because of its predetermined idea that there will be an event called The Great Tribulation at the end of the age, and that Rev is wholly futurist in scope. They smash them together like badly joined threads on a bbs, instead of taking note of the fact that Mat 24 refers to Judea and the events there - as has been clearly pointed out, and ignored, because the idea of the Great Tribulation affects your judgment, whereas Rev can quite easily refer to events in the Roman Empire under Nero, and the persecution of the Christians during his reign.

it is not an argument to say: the Trib did not happen, it did not. that is merely begging the question, because you have yet to prove there is such an event as disp'ism characterises it.

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 05:57 AM
More thoughts for the Holy Ghostbusters


Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-17-2003 06:37 PM:
The following is the testimony of several of the early church fathers in regard to the “great tribulation” and the coming of the antichrist. First, we will examine the teaching of Irenaeus, who studied under Polycarp, who was a pupil of the Apostle John.

Surely Polycarp knew whether or not the “great tribulation” had come to pass, especially considering the fact that he studied directly under the man who wrote the Revelation. And if Polycarp knew, then we can rest assured that Irenaeus also knew.And by the words of Irenaeus it is clear that he believed that the “great tribulation” remained in the future,as well as the coming of the antichrist.This means that he did not believe that the “great tribulation” occurred in AD70:

“…in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:’But when you see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),thenlet those who are in Judea flee into the mountains…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2).

“Daniel too,looking forward to the end of the last kingdom,i.e.,the ten last kings,amongst whom the kingdom of those men SHALL be partitioned,and upon whom the son of perdition SHALL come…”(Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.3).

Hmmm..."in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (Irenaeus,“Against Heresies” 5.25.2). You missed a bit, Jerry. Iren doesn't mention The Great Tribulation, only the hardship of the times (the significance of why they were such as had never been seen before had been addressed in earlier posts).


Jerry quoted: Hippolytus (170-236): “Now concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary,John also speaks this: ‘And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven…’ That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days [the half the week] during which the tyrant IS to reign and persecute the Church (“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 60,61).


But what about this from the same source. Are you gonna trust this guy only when he seems to say something you like?
Hippolytus
61. By "the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly
the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the
sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned,
like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a
crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church
was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world.
“And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the
nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ,
the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man,
becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was
caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always
born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also
declared of old when he said, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at
my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”
(“Treatise on Christ and Antichrist”,Chapters 61).


Posted by Dee Dee Warren on 01-17-2003 09:48 PM:
Someone conveniently forgot about Eusebius and the fact that nearly all of the early church fathers appropriated the promises to Israel to the Church. Ooops, sorry that this snake bites you too. Some people should know better than to wield two-headed vipers.

^------What she said.

There is continual confusion on the issue, as is manifest here and on other threads, and an inablility to see beyond self imposed boundaries by the dispies.

Firstly by the continual use of the phrase The Great Tribulation as if it were the name of something, whereas Matthew only records "tribulation great" as descriptive, Mark "tribulation thlipsis " 13.19,24, and Luke "great distress anagkh" & "wrath orgh" 21.23.
Also the surreptitious bringing in of the Antichrist where he is not mentioned, only the Abom Des and it's standing where it should not.

For instance:

Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-17-2003 10:32 PM:
Now perhaps someone will explain why the early church fathers were in error when they taught that the prophecies concerning the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" remained in the future and were not fulfilled in 70AD.
After all,they were living at a time not too long after Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.Surely if that event represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist,they would be aware of such a fact!
But it is not THE GT, only great tribulation/trouble
And later...
Again,Dee Dee did not even attempt to explain how it is possible that those who lived the closest in time to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD did not believe that that event was the "great tribulation" nor did they believe that the antichrist came at that time either.
Just think about it.If the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the "great tribulation",then is it not the strangest thing in all recorded history the fact that those who were the closest in time to that event were not even aware that it was the "great tribulation"?
The reason they did not see it, is because they were not looking for it, and did not expect to find it as so defined by our modern right dividers. You can't read modern dispie expectations back into the ECFs.

Plus the confusion that Matt 24 and Rev refer to the same thing:

Posted by Knight on 01-18-2003 02:43 AM:
Dee Dee correct me if I am wrong... but don't you believe that the events foretold in the book on Revelation happened in 70AD? (or there abouts)
So that people say the following...
[quote]Posted by Jerry Shugart on 01-18-2003 07:32 PM:
We are supposed to believe that the following things occured,but yet those who studied under the ones who John taught were not even aware that they had already happened:
"snip"(Rev.13.12-17).
We are supposed to believe that all of these prophecies came to pass,yet those who were so closely connected to the very man who wrote these prophecies were not even aware that they had already taken place!In fact,they were sure that they had not happened!.

This goes round and round and round, because as soon as someone addresses one point, the dispies run off saying, yeah but what about this - and post another batch of verses, in the vain belief that they are all connected. Why didn't the ECF writers believe the Great Trib happened in 70ad? Because The Great Trib as dispies figure it is a figment, it does not exist. Why did they not point out Antichrist? Because Antichrist as the dispies figure it is a figment. Why would John refer to the Great Trib? No reason that I can see; Matt Mark and Luke did with ref to Judea, whereas John's gospel may well have been written after the fall of Jerusalem, to serve another purpose - though I am tending to the earlier date for Rev lately.

Before you look for confirmation in the ECFs, you have to prove that your idea of the Great Trib is in fact scriptural, and that you have rightly divided indeed, or else you are just cherry picking quotes - which any of us can do with the ECFs - (for instance the Catholics look to the ECFs for their doctrine of justification. I have Thomas Oden's Justification Reader in which he shows that the ECFs believed in justification by grace through faith alone!)

So, instead of Gang Debate, and Mud-slinging (re the Holocaust, which I consider extremely insensitive and something I would have rebuked had I been a Mod - there goes my nomination out of the window), let's have some reasoned discussion, not megaphone lecturing.
peace in Him

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:04 AM
Bravo Solly! Insightful as usual. :up: I so thoroughly enjoy hearing different perspectives and words on this issue rather than my own continual blathering ;) [and I am sure others are heartily agreeing with that phrase - LOL]

And PS, just so that no one in confused, Solly and I do differ on some issues of the Revelation, where I do in fact believe that it is convergent with the Olivet Discourse in a number of significant ways.... and is speaking primarily, though not SOLELY by any means, of the 70AD event.

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 06:21 AM
Hmmm...not the Roman persuctions then?

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:23 AM
Dear Solly:

Well yes and no.... I certainly do believe that the Roman persecutions are an integral part with Rome being the land Beast corporately, and Nero being the Beast individually. But the destruction of Jerusalem is the primary theme. Do you see what I am getting at?

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 06:37 AM
*chuckles* No, haven't the foggiest, and it never crossed my mind there could be such a view of it, but I am sure I will find out!! :cool:

*matter deleted*

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:44 AM
That is so true!! Well I will then have the benefit of hearing your different perspective on Revelation as we progress, though for this discussion, it probably is a distinction without much difference for you are amenable to an early date and a geographically limited distinction of Rome. That is not too much different than my view.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 07:14 AM
Dear Knight:

On my comments re: the Great Tribulation you said:


That is a completely flawed line of thinking! I am shocked I even read it! Totally illogical! The Great Tribulation was described as an event without equal....

With all due respect I would object that this objection is following a flawed line of thinking. As I once quoted Greg Koukl as saying:

The critical issue is not what the Scripture says. The critical issue is what the Scripture means.

So what did Scripture mean by that phrase? Well I provided proof that this Tribulation was geographically limited to Judea and specifically focused upon the apostate Jews of that time. I also provided proof that an eyewitness to that event (Josephus) who had no motivation to throw the Christians (and preterists) a bone described what happened in that very way, thus at least proving it was viewed in that light by the people of that time, saving us from hopeless anachronization. But… I would ask for you to respond to the following:

Ezekiel 5:9-

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: ‘Indeed I, even I, am against you and will execute judgments in your midst in the sight of the nations. 9 And I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again, because of all your abominations.

This passage is speaking of coming devastation upon the Jews by the Babylonians.

This same language is used again in Exodus 11:6.

Then there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as was not like it before, nor shall be like it again.

If the alleged future Great Tribulation is as bad as futurism alleges, the cry in Egypt will be worse than back in the time of Moses, or at least for Egypt then, it will not be the greatest tribulation ever.

Also, what about the Noah and the flood? The whole world was destroyed and all the animals, save eight men and two of each animal (and seven of each of the clean animals). No matter how bad the futurists paint the alleged future Great Tribulation, it is not as bad as that.

See also Joel 2:2

A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

No it is not certain who Joel is referring to, but it is certainly to his contemporaries, and is likely referring to Assyria or Babylon. Jesus’ language is OBVIOUSLY proverbial and hyperbolic clearly alludes to the former passages.

See also Daniel 9:12:

And He has confirmed His words, which He spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, by bringing upon us a great disaster; for under the whole heaven such has never been done as what has been done to Jerusalem.

And as mentioned already, Josephus also describes the loss of Jerusalem in similar language to Jesus’ pronouncement (proving it is common first century idiomatic hyperbole) – “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.”

The fact is that we often do the same thing today. When a thing or subject is particularly remarkable or extra-ordinary, it is very common to refer to “the greatest,” “the highest,” “the best,” “the scariest,” etc. Scripture provides us with other examples of this….

Look at what is said of Hezekiah:

2 Kings 18:5 – He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him.

Really?? He surpasses even Jesus? But funny, just a little while later in the same Book we read of Josiah –

2 Kings 23:25 – Now before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; nor after him did any arise like him.

Really? What about Jesus?? What about Hezekiah?? This again is classic OT hyperbole.

Continuing…..


Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

Really? Well, you are once again assuming what you need to prove, and what the text of the Discourse speaks against, and that is that this Tribulation is NOT limited to Judea. It was the worst event that could ever happen to the geopolitical Jewish people who had the kingdom taken away from them and given to another. What could be worse than losing one’s special privilege as God’s particular people? Nothing.


The figure of speech wouldn't mean the event was a minor blip in the radar of world history.

Really Knight sincerely I mean this with all due respect, I have to say that you cannot know that much about really happened to describe what happened as a minor blip. Ask any orthodox Jew about the tragedy that they view this in their history. I do believe that such a one would be insulted by your description of the loss of their Temple (which continues to this day) as a minor blip in history. This loss has caused the Jews to have to completely redefine their religion with Rabbinic Judaism arising out of the ashes, because it is now impossible for them to follow the Law. But I have to ask you, this very same language was used in Ezekiel 5:9 and Daniel 9:12. Were those just a minor blips in world history? Maybe, but the context is not world history to begin with, it is Jewish history, and both events were absolutely catastrophic.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Let me guess....

You have been misinformed that futurism is the only alternative to preterism?

No there is also historicisim and idealism. Did I miss any other -isms? :D

Edit: I did not realize that Dee Dee had already addressed this

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Solly
I might equally point out, that a full working knowledge of dispensationalism, in whatever brand, is not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is an understanding of scripture. The truth will out, as they say. How many of us have a deep understanding of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Communism, marxism, Existentialism, PostModernism, Nihilism, Wicca, 1001 subChristian cults, Arianism, Nesotianism, Modalism, Arminianism, Calvinsim, OVTism, Dispensationalism Unitarianism, Liberalism, etc etc etc.

So that as far as using the "you don't understand ****-ism properly" argument is concerned, I think I could just as easily use it against those who continue to caricature Calvinism as determinism. Such statements do not forward the discussion at all, but rather prejudice it. I have refrained from caricaturing Arminianism, for instance. Neither is anything gained by the resort to "Oh, but HE doesn't understand MY dispensationalism, so that isn't a valid comment".

There seems to be a lot of thrashing one particular view, while giving very little in return in a lot of the debates on TOL. I have given up on a lot, because having answered a question, I am immediatly presented with another six excerpts from scripture to comment on, and yet none of my questions have been addressed, as if I am on trial for heresy.

If you think your view is being misrepresented, then represent it, in the debate.

Well said Solly:thumb:

Solly
January 22nd, 2003, 07:46 AM
You missed one Faramir: obscurantism

More justified hyperbole from scripture:

The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the whole world is gone after him. John 12.19

and from real life:

That "Refrigerator" is a Big Guy, I wouldn't want to meet him in a match.

Wow, the sun is so small, I can cover it with my hand.

Perspective, perspective, perspective.

One man's world falling apart through a car accident is another man's statistic in the evening news.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Oh I get it.... apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists.

Tell us Faramir.... how can you tell the following verse isn't "apocalyptic language"?Fair question?

As soon as you appeal to "apocalyptic language" you throw out the best argument the preterists have again the futurists (which by the way I am not a futurist - pre se)

Did you not see this:


When reading anything, it is important to take the work in context. Revelation was written by a first century Jew, largely in apocalyptic language. A style that is characterized by hyperbole, superlative language, and symbolism (although some things like time indicators are intended to be taken literally when used in context with apocalyptic writing ) . So what you refer to as "spirtualizing" is actually reading the text as it was intended to be read.


The part in bold was not a joke. Lets take Daniel for example. A lot of his prophecies are in symbolic "apocalyptic language". Even some dispensationalists admit that the "beasts" in Daniel are symbolic of governments, not literal beast. However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispinsationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.

Just so you understand apocalyptic language:

Freaky Beast = Symbolic
Astronomical Catastrophe = Symbolic
Superlative Language = Hyperbole
Time references = Literal

And no, I do not take this approach to fit in with my preterist view. When I apply this to Old Testament prophecies that have already taken place (ie prophecies that were fulfilled BC) the prophecies have this nasty habit of corresponding with reality :D I then apply this to the OD and Revelation, and that is why I am a preterist.
:thumb:

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 08:34 AM
Having now read over the entire 7 pages thus far of this discussion, I've decided to zero in on the following...and not cross paths too much with that which has already been sufficiently answered by others...

First these words from a little brown mouse named Jerry...who reminds me rather of the folks at church who think "apologetics" means "I'm sorry I'm a Christian" and who would accuse me of heresy and disrespect for saying Deuteonomy was modeled after a Hittite suzerainty treaty...

Common sense tells us that if the “great tribulation” had in fact occurred in AD70,then men living so close in time to this event would know for sure if it had occurred or not, and if the antichrist had come or not!

To quote that equally great philosopher, Bill the Cat: Ack, pfft. "Common sense" tells us no such thing. If it did we would never have people today blindly ignorant of history who think that the "Sermon on the Mount" was so called because it was delievered on horseback.

And this despite the fact that some of them were pupils of one who had studied directly at the knee of the Apostle John--the very author of the Revelation!

Heck, some of the worst heretics were supposed to have studied at the knees of Apostles as well.

Now for Sir Tinpants of Dispensalia:

Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. One would think an event such as described above might get more than a one sentence description in a common encyclopedia.

Even if "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." were a figure of speech (as you assert) the figure of speech would have meaning. That meaning would be that the Great Tribulation would be a INCREDIBLE event! Huge, massive and certainly close to one of the worst events on the face of the planet!

We need not hear further talk of your ego exploding, Sir Tinpants. :D

DD has started out well here with talk of ancient hyperbole. Why not reinfornce the point? I would recommend that all non-preterists read the work of that awful heretic G. B. Caird entitled
Languge and Imagery of the Bible to get a clue that when reading the Scriptures they are not reading modern news reports.
Pardon some self-plagiarization if I may...


1 Samuel 15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

Um. A people here recorded as being "utterly destroyed" comes back making trouble just a few chapters later in 1 Samuel. Isn't that funny. Well, compare this to an inscription offered by Pharaoh Ramesses III:


I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore.

Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate that they were captured. Try some of these lines from the Victory Stele of Merneptah:

Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.

Pretty seasoned trash talk, and if you take it all literally you'll be in a heapin' world of semantic and historical hurt. Yanoam made nonexistent? No seed left for Israel:? Golly. In ancient context, such claims as 1 Samuel 15:8 and Dan. 12:1 make are not to be taken literally, as though God or Daniel had taken out some historical yardstick across eternity and actually measured things like number of deaths, etc. They are ancient "trash talk" of war -- no more.

Such rhetorical emphasis typifies ancient and even modern Semitic cultures.Caird [110ff] notes the frequent use of hyperbole among Semitic peoples, and notes that "its frequent use arises out of a habitual cast of mind" which tends to view matters in extremes, or as we would say, "black and white." The Semitic mindset is dogmatic, and despises doubt; things are either one way or another, and there is no room for introspection. When the Scriptures speak of an event in terms like Dan. 12:1 and the other verses noted, you need to get off your Western glasses and ead with Eastern eyes.

More examples may be found from Rihbany's The Syrian Christ [108ff]. I think this quote from Rihbany are sufficient:


A case may be overstated or understated, not necessarily for the purpose of deceiving, but to impress the hearer with the significance or insignificance of it. If a sleeper who has been expected to rise at sunrise should oversleep and need to be awakened, say half an hour or an hour later than the appointed time, he is then aroused with the call, 'Arise, it is noon already...' Of a strong and brave man it is said, 'He can split the earth.'

Rihbany offers other examples of such sayings from daily life. Here is a welcome he received from an old friend when he came to his home: "You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for your pleasure." The Westerner who hears this might well be shocked and offended, but what is being said behind the verbiage is no more than "I am delighted to see you; please make yourself at home."

Want more? Pilch and Malina in the Handbook of Biblical Social Values concur [52]. They note that in modern Western society, culture is tied to precision; time is a commodity, and dramatic orientation wastes time by not getting to the point. Unlike in the ancient world, when dramatic speech and eloquence were held in high esteem, "Creativity, imagination, and boasting are activities that waste precious time" and "have no place in a society driven by productivity: machines will tolerate no exaggeration, imprecision, or tardiness."

In short, Sir Tinpants, you have signed on the dotted line of the wrong semantic contract. The statement: "....apocalyptic language is the answer when the text flies in the face of preterism but literalism is the preterists best friend when the preterists want to battle the futurists" is an 18 wheeler loaded with naivete, to say nothing of the sort of accusation that Farrell Till would throw in the air. Someone like Josephus knew better, which is why he saw no problem in using those very words to describe the events of 70. Now as to this bit of hermeneutical homicide:


Revelation 9:18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed' by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.

Unfortunately, Sir Tinpants, "mankind" is a wee bit of a jaundiced translation. The word there is just "men"/"man". :D There is no delimiter specifying all of the human race here.

Further proving my point that preterists haven't a clue as to what dispensationalism is all about. Thanks for the demonstration JP!

Goldurn, how can we get a clue when dispys keep shifting the goalposts to explain away all their problems? :D

Yoikes and away,

JP

Jerry Shugart
January 22nd, 2003, 10:17 AM
We dispensationalists keep waiting for even one of the preterists to explain the meaning of the verses which we have put forward.

They keep saying that it is forthcoming,but it never arrives.Instead,we see Dee Dee once again appealing to the testimony of those who lived near the time of their imagined "great tribulation".But why would Dee Dee ever use their testimony as evidence,since she herself says "that the early Church had a very confused and muddled eschatology" (01-18-2003 12:25 PM).

I guess appealing to "confused and muddled eschatology" is better in her opinion than offering no evidence at all.

Perhaps Mr.jpholding will give us his interpretation as to when the following events took place.After all,he seems to think that he has all the answers.We see the Lord say:

"And it shall come to pass,in that day,that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

And in fact the verses that follow show Him fighting against those nations:

"For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle...then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

Surely Mr.jpholding will not say that this occured in Jereusalem in 70AD.After all,these Scriptual passages state that when all the nations are brought against Jerusalem that the Lord will fight against those nations.And we would never even entertain the notion that the Lord would loose this battle,would we?

Or perhaps Mr.jpholding thinks that the Lord did fight a loosing battle.

But if he does not think that these prophesies are in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD,then perhaps Mr.jpholding will explain when it will occur.

After all,"all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,and is profitable for doctrine,for reproof,for correction..."(2Tim.3:16).

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 11:02 AM
LOL!!! Never have I read more gobbledegook and obfuscation in my life!!!

You preterists are shameless!

My prayer ...
Lord please never allow me to maintain a world-view or theology that forces me to obfuscate and avoid direct questions at every turn.

Faramir....
Answer my question....

Since you have reduced all or at very least MOST of Revelation to "apocalyptic language" how could you convince a futurist that the following verse is NOT "apocalyptic language"?


Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. - Matthew 24:34

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 11:23 AM
Jerry, Jerry, Quite Contrary --

Perhaps Mr.jpholding will give us his interpretation as to when the following events took place.After all,he seems to think that he has all the answers.

And what makes you think I don't? :D Jerry, I have seen you argue. I read Ben Witherington; you are still working on coloring books. Don't waste my time. Dee Dee posted her answer before. If she'll bring it up here again (as she has said she will) I will comment; what I recall of it, I agreed with it, but it has been some time. In the meantime do not take the time needed for searching for it as latent victory. And if you have answers to what *I* wrote just above, haul 'em out. I have spent a lot of time trying to keep people like you from turning Christianity into a faith of mush-mouths and misguided sheep who baaaaaa at every turn from a preacher whose degree is in counseling and whose idea of a "great Christian scholar" is Warren Wiersbe.

Sir Tinpants of Futurama:

LOL!!! Never have I read more gobbledegook and obfuscation in my life!!!

Ah. A Farrell Till answer. Good show. Was that for me, Dee Dee, or both of us?

Since you have reduced all or at very least MOST of Revelation to "apocalyptic language" how could you convince a futurist that the following verse is NOT "apocalyptic language"?

May I answer?

Do you see a beast with horns in that verse?

Do you see an image of some kind -- a word picture?

I don't. Sir Tinpants, get some lessons in genre study, if you please. :rolleyes: It might help to read some genuine apoc lit from that era, like 1 Enoch or something. You'll never get into these people's minds with that Hal Lindsey Hermeneutic.

JP

Jerry Shugart
January 22nd, 2003, 11:27 AM
Knight,

Good point!While we await the answer of Mr.jpholding to the verses concerning the Lord fighting against the nations that come against Jerusalem,I could say that the following is the meaning of the following verse:

"This generation shall not pass,till ALL these things be fulfilled"(Mt.24:34).

I could say that the preterists have made a very good case that the word "all" does not always man "all".I could say that in this verse that it means "some".

And "some" of the prophesised events did take place,such as the "famines,and pestilences,and earthquakes"(Mt.24:7).

Therefore,that generation did live to see some of those things,but they did not remain alive to see all the rest of them come to pass.

I could use this method in order to pervert the Scriptures,but I have too much respect for them than to treat them in such a dishonorable manner.

In the meantime,I await the answer from Mr.jpholding.I hope that I do not have to wait as long for his response as we have been kept waiting for the responses from others.

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Sir Tinpants of Futurama:

LOL!!! Never have I read more gobbledegook and obfuscation in my life!!!

Ah. A Farrell Till answer. Good show. Was that for me, Dee Dee, or both of us?

Since you have reduced all or at very least MOST of Revelation to "apocalyptic language" how could you convince a futurist that the following verse is NOT "apocalyptic language"?

May I answer?Only if its a good answer....

JP's answer...
Do you see a beast with horns in that verse?

Do you see an image of some kind -- a word picture?Bzzzzzz.... I said you could answer if it was a GOOD answer!!!

Hey JP I don't see any word pictures in the following verse...
"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed "
Yet according to you preterists that was only "apocalyptic language!"

Preterists: the ultimate form of wanting to have their cake and eat it too!

So let's review....

The preterists say the verse "By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed" is only "apocalyptic language"...

But then say....
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. - Matthew 24:34IS NOT "apocalyptic language because it doesn't contain a reference to a beast!

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
You'll never get into these people's minds with that Hal Lindsey Hermeneutic.

JP Is that sort of like the "Beast" hermeneutic? LOL! :rolleyes:

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 12:27 PM
Sir Tinpants, your can opener called.

Hey JP I don't see any word pictures in the following verse...

That's it, evade your lack of knowledge of docs like 1 Enoch, then switch topics...

"By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed Yet according to you preterists that was only "apocalyptic language!"

When did I say that one was? I didn't. I said only that "mankind" is a bogus translation. However, there is a figure of speech as "a third" simply means a portion -- not that you would have any problem with that either.

Preterists: the ultimate form of wanting to have their cake and eat it too!

I see you like the taste of sour grape. :D

IS NOT "apocalyptic language because it doesn't contain a reference to a beast!

Gee, now he sounds like Evangelion...beasties are a charcateristic image of such lit; I used it as an example. Typical fundaliteralist/dispy exegesis. Try again and maybe this time come back educated in first century Jewish apocalyptic lit. Easy now, the Qumran scrolls won't bite...

Gnawing on your aluminum visor and finding it still empty,

JP

Jerry Shugart
January 22nd, 2003, 12:29 PM
jpholding,

Are you not aware that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God"(2Tim.3:16)?

You seem to do your very best to disparage any Scripture that does not fit your misguided beliefs.For example,you quote 1Sam.15:8 and Dan.12:1 and say that these words "are ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

Well,I would say that just about summarizes the disrespect that the preterists heap on the Scriptures that are "given by inspiration of God".

And you say that if you remember correctly you agree with Dee Dee´s interpretation of the inspired words of God as recorded at Zechariah 12:9 and 14:2,3.

Here the Lord says that He "will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9).

We also see Him doing that very thing:

"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle...Then shall the Lord go forth,and fight against those nations,as when He fought in the day of battle"(Zech.14:2,3).

And since the plain meaning of these words have no place in the eschatology of Dee Dee and those who follow the same false teaching,she is forced to make them refer to the utter destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD!

I told her that "no one who came against Jerusalem was destroyed",to which she replied:

"Really??Funny,since most of the world thinks that the Roman Empire has long since ceased to exist...Again,if Jerry knew his ancient history well he would be aware that the Romans never prospered as they once did after 70AD and the Empire´s decline can well be placed as beginning at that very point."

So in order that Dee Dee can cling to her false eschatolgy she would make the Lord to fight against the nations that came against Jerusalem in 70AD but fight so poorly that Jerusalem was completely destroyed!

And you say that you agree with her interpretation.You also make it plain that you think that some of the words which are inspired of God is "ancient trash talk" and "no more".

Instead of quoting any Scripture to support Dee Dee´s "fables",you say,"I have read Ben Witherington"!!!

Woop-te-do!!!

Give the man a hand.He has read Ben Witherington.

And he puts so much faith in what that man says that he just ignore the inspired writings that declare that the Lord Jesus will deliver Jerusalem and His people in the moment of their greatest peril:

"And so all Israel will be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 01:05 PM
It's funny... when you read this thread from top to bottom you are left with this overwhelming feeling that the preterists believe that the Great Tribulation was not so great.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Faramir....
Answer my question....

Since you have reduced all or at very least MOST of Revelation to "apocalyptic language" how could you convince a futurist that the following verse is NOT "apocalyptic language"?

Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. - Matthew 24:34



I would point out to the futurist that this verse is in Matthew not Revelation, and I would use small words and talk slowly so he would understand. ;)

Seriosly? I thought I did. :confused: My post in this tread dated 01-22-2003 02:18 PM was an attempt to answer your question. Did you read it? If yes, then why do you ask me to answer you question again?

Does any one else see a pattern here?

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again

ad infinitum

I will answer this question one more time in summary form. For a more detailed answer see my post of 01-22-2003 02:18 PM :

A lot of his prophecies are in symbolic "apocalyptic language". Even some dispensationalists admit that the "beasts" in Daniel are symbolic of governments, not literal beast. However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispensationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.

Just so you understand apocalyptic language:

Freaky Beast = Symbolic
Astronomical Catastrophe = Symbolic
Superlative Language = Hyperbole
Time references = Literal

If you don't like the answer, fine. Tell me why you disagree, but don't accuse me of not answering. Ddon't just ignore it and hope it will go away. I answered your question, how about you answering a few of mine.

1. Is my post of 01-22-2003 02:18 PM an answer to your question? If not why not? (Hint the answer is yes as it is my post and answering your question was my intent)

2. Do you agree with my post? (I think no is a safe answer)

3. Can you address the issues I raised in my post of 01-22-2003 02:18 PM and tell me why that post represents a faulty method of interpretation? In other words tell me why my answer is not really an answer. :p

I gave you three questions (gave you the answer to two). Lets see if you can practice what you preach and answer my question. Or do you need me to answer your question yet again.

:rolleyes:

In all seriosness, I look forward to your answer.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 01:51 PM
Hey Faramir:


Does any one else see a pattern here?

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again


Oh no you forgot a step. Let me revise the usual scenario u (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course)....

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my first question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again

:D

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 01:58 PM
Dear JP:


And what makes you think I don't? Jerry, I have seen you argue. I read Ben Witherington; you are still working on coloring books. Don't waste my time. Dee Dee posted her answer before. If she'll bring it up here again (as she has said she will) I will comment; what I recall of it, I agreed with it, but it has been some time. In the meantime do not take the time needed for searching for it as latent victory.

Yes I have answered that question multiple times, but it is not the one that was going to take some searching or writing again from scratch that I alluded to before. And so that you have it handy I will repost it here, but first I need to add some things to it to correct Jerry's poor reading comprehension of the answer the first, second, third, and fourth times since he keeps misrepresenting what my answer meant. But strawman are so easy to knock down.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey Faramir:



Oh no you forgot a step. Let me revise the usual scenario u (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course)....

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my first question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again

:D

:doh: I missed that one. LOL

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
A lot of his prophecies are in symbolic "apocalyptic language". Even some dispensationalists admit that the "beasts" in Daniel are symbolic of governments, not literal beast. Maybe, maybe not.... but are the ACTIONS of the beast literal or NOT literal?
"And he (the beast) exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him,and caused the earth and them who dwelleth on it to worship the first beast,whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders,so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men.And deceiveth them that dwell on earth by the means of those miracles...and he causeth all,both small and great,rich and poor,free and enslaved,to receive a mark on their right hand,or in their foreheads,and that no man might buy or sell,except he that had the mark,or the name of the beast,or the number of his name" Does any of that verse have any real meaning whatsoever? Does "apocalyptic language" turn the verse into to something other than what it says? If the "Beast" does represent the government wouldn't the rest of the verse still have some practical meaning?

In practical preterist terms (I realize thats an oxymoron) what does the above verse mean??? Please interpret for me in "apocalyptic language" of course.


You continue....
However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispensationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.You do realize that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD CANNOT fall within Daniel's 70 prophecy in the preterist timeline don't you?

Isn't that right Dee Dee? (a simple "yes thats right Knight" will suffice)

According to Dee Dee the end of the 70 weeks is at Paul's conversion.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 02:25 PM
Dee Dee Said:


Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!


Then Knight Said:


Does any of that verse have any real meaning whatsoever? Does "apocalyptic language" turn the verse into to something other than what it says? If the "Beast" does represent the government wouldn't the rest of the verse still have some practical meaning?

In practical preterist terms (I realize thats an oxymoron) what does the above verse mean??? Please interpret for me in "apocalyptic language" of course.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 02:28 PM
Knight unlike you, I am not afraid to answer questions that are asked of me. However, I have a meeting to go to and from there church until late tonight. It will probably be tomorrow before I can respond.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 02:30 PM
Faramir, I sense you are mocking me. However, my question is directly related to the first question I asked.

Furthermore.... ONE QUESTION MANY TIMES LEADS TO ANOTHER, whats wrong with that? Answers usually generate further questions.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 02:31 PM
Now while you are at your meeting you can ponder the following from my previous post....

You do realize that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD CANNOT fall within Daniel's 70 prophecy in the preterist timeline don't you?

Isn't that right Dee Dee? (a simple "yes that's right Knight" will suffice)

According to Dee Dee the end of the 70 weeks is at Paul's conversion.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 02:54 PM
Dear Knight and Faramir:


You do realize that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD CANNOT fall within Daniel's 70 prophecy in the preterist timeline don't you?

Isn't that right Dee Dee? (a simple "yes thats right Knight" will suffice)

According to Dee Dee the end of the 70 weeks is at Paul's conversion.

Yes that rights Knight... but, why in the world did you make this statement to begin with. Faramir already knew and acknowledged that by stating:


However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispensationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.

So while you are absolutely right in your statement concerning my position, it is also absolutely irrelevant to Faramir's point. And for the record, though a clarification is in order to your point. You have represented me totally correctly and I thank you for that. But just as their are differences on some details within futurism, there are differences in details amongst preterists. Smilax for instance does not agree with me on that issue, so I will not say it CANNOT be a certain way in a preterist timeline.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 02:57 PM
It's funny... when you read this thread from top to bottom you are left with this overwhelming feeling that the preterists believe that the Great Tribulation was not so great.

And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't :doh: And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties. :D

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight and Faramir:

Yes that rights Knight... but, why in the world did you make this statement to begin with. Faramir already knew and acknowledged that by stating:
However Daniel's time reference (the 70 weeks) is dead on the money literal. And with the exception of the last two or three weeks most preterist and dispensationalist agree as to when those weeks took place.Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 03:16 PM
Faramir, I sense you are mocking me.

Ah, I see Calvinist's super-perception powers have rubbed off on our fearless leader ;)

Jerry Shugart
January 22nd, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear JP:



Yes I have answered that question multiple times, but it is not the one that was going to take some searching or writing again from scratch that I alluded to before. And so that you have it handy I will repost it here, but first I need to add some things to it to correct Jerry's poor reading comprehension of the answer the first, second, third, and fourth times since he keeps misrepresenting what my answer meant. But strawman are so easy to knock down.

I have given Dee Dee´s interpretation of the prophecis of Zechariaia many times,but it is only NOW that Dee Dee says that I misrepresebted her view.

How convenient for her!

I await the words where she says that I have "poor reading comprehension" and therefore I misrepresented what she said.This should not take long,since she knows EXACTLY where she can find those words--"Battle Royale III".The first answer Dee Dee gave can be found at her post dated 08-30-2002 10:33 AM.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 03:21 PM
Dear Knight:

Sigh, just when I thought you were paying attention.. :)


Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.

Faramir is well aware of that interesting bit of information, but you are doing what you have been doing quite frequently in this thread, and assuming what you must prove and then pointing to your assumptions, and saying, "Ah ha!!"

Your statement was correct. Your implied charge of a contradiction is incorrect. Your assumption is that the 70th week of Daniel is by necessity the Great Tribulation. It is not. Thus, foisting your timeline unto the preterist interpretation and then claiming an internal inconsistency is illegitimate. All you have proven is that the preterist and futurist timelines do not agree with each other and are mutually exclusive, which is of course is obvious before any of us even open our mouths.

Faramir
January 22nd, 2003, 03:33 PM
Dee Dee Said:


Dear Knight:

Sigh, just when I thought you were paying attention..



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Said:
Thats an acknowledgment? How so?

I bring this up because we are talking about the Great Tribulation. Preterists claim the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD. Yet also claim that the 70th week of Daniels prophecy ended at Paul's conversion.

Faramir might not be aware of that interesting tid bit of information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dee Dee Said:

Faramir is well aware of that interesting bit of information, but you are doing what you have been doing quite frequently in this thread, and assuming what you must prove and then pointing to your assumptions, and saying, "Ah ha!!"

Your statement was correct. Your implied charge of a contradiction is incorrect. Your assumption is that the 70th week of Daniel is by necessity the Great Tribulation. It is not. Thus, foisting your timeline unto the preterist interpretation and then claiming an internal inconsistency is illegitimate. All you have proven is that the preterist and futurist timelines do not agree with each other and are mutually exclusive, which is of course is obvious before any of us even open our mouths.

WOW Knight I had no idea (oops there I go mocking you again:doh: )

Once again Dee Dee shows her amazing ability to read what I said. Way to go Dee Dee.

Of course I am aware that the great trib took place in AD70 outside of Daniel's 70 weeks. :eek: That is what the bible clearly says :D

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't :doh: And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties. :D Oh come on Dee Dee be reasonable....

You have to admit its pretty damaging to the preterist view that the events of 70AD went by without being recognized as the Great Tribulation by the world and more specifically the early church leaders.

You can brush it off if you like but I would say it stands as an insurmountable obstacle to the preterist view.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey Faramir:

Oh no you forgot a step. Let me revise the usual scenario u (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course)....

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist answer this question.

Preterist: Here is the answer.

Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!

Dispensationalist: Hey preterist, why don't you answer my first question?

Preterist: Here is my answer yet again

:D Faramir and Dee Dee I want to comment on your above mocking of me with serious suggestion. When you hold a view that greatly differs from the mainstream thought you have to expect that others will want to investigate with question upon question. I find that very reasonable. As Dee Dee already knows I hold views myself that are hardly "mainstream" and I welcome question upon question! In fact..... I love to answer those questions upon questions. I even like to answer those questions with a super brief answers so I can more quickly get to their next question. More ground gets covered that way.

And sometimes you may need to answer a question with more or less detail a second time just for clarification purposes.

Just a suggestion for you folks to ponder.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 04:58 PM
Dear Knight:


Faramir and Dee Dee I want to comment on your above mocking of me with serious suggestion.

I want to be perfectly clear here Knight. I (speaking for myself) was not referring to you in that comment. That is why I added this parenthetical comment - (not meant to represent every dispensationalist or futurist of course).... When I mean to mock you specifically I will make it really clear. So in this instance, I apologize for the mistaken impression.

But I too have a suggestion for you to ponder.. while I admit that is funny (I can appreciate a good slam), because you also have such a minority view, you might not keep comparing me to someone who believes that the holocaust never happened, or that men did not land on the moon. I have explained why the comparison falls completely flat and is illegitimate.

PS: I was definitely mocking you here...


Ah, I see Calvinist's super-perception powers have rubbed off on our fearless leader :D

And I was half-way mocking you here:


And that answers the exegetical data I provided in what way? Oh, that's right. It doesn't And I thought the Vogue went out in the eighties.

:kiss:

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

I have explained why the comparison falls completely flat and is illegitimate.

And I disagree that the comparison falls flat. (And just where did you explain that? Could you point me in the direction of where that occurred?)

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 05:07 PM
Call the Boredom Police...

Are you not aware that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God"(2Tim.3:16)?

Yep. Contraily, Jerrily, very little of your decontextualized exegesis of Scripture could even remotely be called "inspired" unless you have been dipping to heavily into the port...

You seem to do your very best to disparage any Scripture that does not fit your misguided beliefs.For example,you quote 1Sam.15:8 and Dan.12:1 and say that these words "are ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

It is disparaging and disrespectful to place the text in its proper literary and historical context? Au contraie, mon Jerri. It is ye of the Western-literalist mindset who disrespects the Scriptures by imposing upon them your uglified, anachronistic interpretations that would never have been imagined by persons living in the time of their writing.

And you say that if you remember correctly you agree with Dee Dee´s interpretation of the inspired words of God as recorded at Zechariah 12:9 and 14:2,3.

Yep. And you WILL wait and stop using that as a a diversion. You obviously have no answer at all to the general argument that the content of the texts of 1 Sam. and Dan. fit the pattern of the ancient war oracle -- "trash talk" in the common vernacular -- other than sticking carrots in your ears and singing about how "disrespectful" it is to read the text as people in the ancient world would read it, rather than as it would be read by the Church of Christ preacher yelling from and banging on the pulpit.
You sure you're not related to Farrell Till yourself?

And since the plain meaning of these words

Plain meaning! Defined: "A head in sand approach to exegesis that assumes the text was written yesterday and for you personally."

Instead of quoting any Scripture to support Dee Dee´s "fables",you say,"I have read Ben Witherington"!!!Woop-te-do!!! Give the man a hand.He has read Ben Witherington.

Who I'd bet you don't know from Fat Albert -- do you, Jerry? :D If you did know, you'd know just how much of a clown you're making of yourself here.

And he puts so much faith in what that man says that he just ignore the inspired writings that declare that the Lord Jesus will deliver Jerusalem and His people in the moment of their greatest peril:"And so all Israel will be saved;as it is written,There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer,and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob"(Ro.11:26).

Ooh, threats. Next I'm going to Hell, right? Have you signed your KJV Only Club card yet? Unfortunately that is also a badly decontextualized reading of Rom. 11:26, which has zip to do with military deliverance. And as an aside, forget not this passage:
Rom. 9:6b For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel...
Get a clue from what follows in Romans 9. Jerry, it is ostriches like you who do the most damage to the Christian faith in this world -- more damage even than atheists. It's people like you who cause apostasies with your sorrowful attempts at rationalizing and decontextualizing the Scriptures into yesterday's newspaper.

Baaaa,

JP

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:18 PM
Dear Knight:

Sure to point you in the direction where I (and also Solly) demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy:


Ah but here is where I believe that you are grossly missing the point. You obviously believe that the Great Tribulation is planet-wide in scope, and then have taken your presuppositions to judge the alleged incredulity of my position that the Great Tribulation has already happened as being equivalent to someone who holds that that Holocaust did not happen. This is completely illegitimate, and is very similar in principle to the misconceptions that some perpetrate about the OV. Let me explain. I often hear the uninformed say that OV limits the power of God from knowing the future, and turn the argument into one soley based on whether or not God is omnipotent. But you and I both know that is a complete straw man. The argument is not soley over whether or not God could know a knowable future, but whether the future exists to be known in any meaningful way. Thus the argument is not about the nature of God per se, but about the nature of the future. Thus the nonOV attempts to make the OV look silly and ridiculous soley on those grounds are founded on complete beds of straw.

By analogy that is what you are doing to me, though I believe it is inadvertent due to misunderstanding. I do not believe that the Great Tribulation was planet-wide in scope for the very reasons that Solly has articulated and I will articulate again. Thus, you cannot right judge me as an ignoramus of the sort that would deny that the Holocaust happened because I allegedly can accept the absence of worldwide testimony to this catastrophe, when I don’t believe it was worldwide to begin with!! You need to start from my presuppositions to judge whether or not I am being realistic about the amount of evidence required. Since I believe it is a catastrophic judgment limited to Judea…. I do have ample historical evidence contained within the writings of the ECF and more particularly Josephus’ Jewish Wars which reads in many place like it was written straight out of Matthew 24. Thus the issue is not over the lack of worldwide evidence, the issue is over the nature and scope of the Great Tribulation which is a Scriptural issue, and not one of how historically gullible that I allegedly am.

And Solly addressed the issue in his post - 01-22-2003 06:57 AM

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:22 PM
And Knight you still have not dealt with the exegetical evidence I gave RE the term "Great Tribulation," but keep pointing proudly to your presuppositions as if the case is closed by you merely stating your point without interacting with my defense.

I dealt in my defense with each of your restated objections i.e. why didn't the WORLD recognize it as such, and much earlier I demonstrated that the ECF DID recognize it as such an event, but were at times self-contradictory and that neither side could wave them about as their trump card.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

Sure to point you in the direction where I (and also Solly) demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy:

And Solly addressed the issue in his post - 01-22-2003 06:57 AM Oh yea the ol' "localized tribulation" explanation - LOL! Sort of like the "localized flood" theory.

Explaining something is far different than explaining AWAY something. You did the latter. Sorry!

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:23 PM
Dee Dee please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

And please don't appeal to one or two late 3rd century references because with all due respect.... that just aint gonna cut it. :D

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:25 PM
And again Knight, sorry but I am not impressed or persuaded by your Ex Cathedra pronouncements. I provided exegetical evidenced that you have totally failed to even attempt to deal with. Attempting to divert attention away by somehow associating this position with a local flood is no better than your illegitimate attempt compare me with those who deny the holocaust.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:29 PM
Dear Knight:

Were you really paying attention when Jerry and I did the ECF dance? But I did appreciate this statement:


There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?


You really might want to take you own advice. And by the way, you totally veered down a different alley where I pointed you, at your request, to the place where I demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy. Are you going to deal with the foundational bait and switch you do with your completely unfair and inflammatory analogy?

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:33 PM
This post was too important to be at the bottom of the last page :D

Dee Dee please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

And please don't appeal to one or two late 3rd century references because with all due respect.... that just aint gonna cut it. :D

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:35 PM
Knight please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually started in 30AD but was INTERRUPTED but this fact went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the ECF and by even some lamo 2nd, 3rd, 4th century church writers...

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to Acts 9 pruturism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:37 PM
Oh Knight, I did see it at the bottom of the last page and addressed this latest rabbit trail in Wonderland in the post directly preceeding your repost.

Oh, and on another note... I had been meaning to tell you, there is really no further word about my job. It is still quite up in the air. I still would appreciate your prayers for me.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

You really might want to take you own advice.Yea.. good point... after all.... I am right! :D

You continue...
And by the way, you totally veered down a different alley where I pointed you, at your request, to the place where I demonstrated the illegitimacy of your analogy.I reject your assertion (and your failed explanation) that my analogy is flawed.

You continue....
Are you going to deal with the foundational bait and switch you do with your completely unfair and inflammatory analogy? My comparison is INFLAMMATORY! Your right! And it is carefully crafted to be as such.

I am not going to pull any punches with you here..... I think it is absolutely asinine to assert that the Great Tribulation has already occurred! It's just as asinine as thinking that we haven't landed on the moon and that the holocaust didn't happen and that crop circles are made by aliens. The people who think these things are fooling themselves and disregarding reality to believe in something that is obviously untrue.

This is not a solely theological or biblical debate. World history also cries out that preterism is untrue!

Had the Great Tribulation happened it would have been noticed by more than a handful of preterists! :)

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 05:44 PM
I was just wondering if --

-- when you argue in circles like this, your armor spins too, or just your body inside the armor. I mean, do we see the whole thing spin, or just hear it and see a suit or armor sort of rattling?

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

If the early church can produce a Marcion or a Valentinius, and if it can produce a false view of the salvific efficacy of baptism, it sure could miss the trib described in Matt. 24. Heck, why do you think the Mormons can cull so much grease from the patristics? Some of them made the same mistakes in exegesis Joseph Smith did.

As Jerry has so fantastically documented

Pfft! Scuse me, had to clean the spit off my screen... :D The words "Jerry" and "fantastically documented" never should be in the same sentence.

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism.

No more so than any other case of rampant stupidity through the ages.

God: "Don't steal your neighbor's ox."

Israel: "Ok. Where did you say it was parked?"

There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

Hey! Knight is admitting minors! :shocked:

JP

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:48 PM
Dear Knight:

Again, all I get from you is a lot of posturing and Ex Cathedra pronouncements but no interacting with any of my points, except for the equivalent of:

YOU'RE WRONG - SO THERE!

You disgree with my dismantling of the foundational flaw of your inflammatory rhetoric, but you don't interact, you simply state it as if your mere opinion should send me bawling in repentance. It doesn't.

You disagree with my assessment of the phrase "Great Tribulation" but have yet to deal with my exegetical evidence to any geater extent than "uh uh!!!."

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Knight please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually started in 30AD but was INTERRUPTED but this fact went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the ECF and by even some lamo 2nd, 3rd, 4th century church writers...

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to Acts 9 pruturism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there? Huh? Again your lack of understanding dispensationalism is showing.

The EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S did NOT believe that the Great Tribulation happened in 70 AD.

This supports BOTH strict futurism and Acts 9 dispensationalism. The "WHY" it (the Tribulation) has NOT happened yet is a fun and interesting THEOLOGICAL debate but both views are entirely supported by the views of the ECF.

So now feel free to answer my question.....

Dee Dee please admit or deny the following statement....

IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

And please don't appeal to one or two late 3rd century references because with all due respect....that just aint gonna cut it.

I think you could at least admit this fact might be somewhat damaging to preterism. There isn't anything wrong with minor admissions is there?

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
Had the Great Tribulation happened it would have been noticed by more than a handful of preterists!

Had the Great Tribulation started and stopped it would have been noticed by, err, somebody. Produce some historical ECF support for your view. And by the way, Josephus wasn't a preterist last time I checked. World history is not silent about the event, but of course I have brought up these points and others which have been met by responses from you which are admittedly high in entertainment value (for I have always enjoyed your wit) but shockingly low in content.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 05:55 PM
Huh? Again your lack of understanding dispensationalism is showing.

The EARLY CHURCH FATHER'S did NOT believe that the Great Tribulation happened in 70 AD.

This supports BOTH strict futurism and Acts 9 dispensationalism. The "WHY" it (the Tribulation) has NOT happened yet is a fun and interesting THEOLOGICAL debate but both views are entirely supported by the views of the ECF.


Not so far there, first I provided ECF support that some in fact did, and can produce monstrous support that they nearly unaminously identified the Church with Israel. Your view believes that the Great Tribulation STARTED BUT WAS INTERRUPTED. There is absolutely NO ECF support for that idea. I will not disrespect you by calling it assinine. I will simply say that I strongly disagree and to say that the dearth of historical support for your view (including the idea of two gospels) is massive would be an understatement.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
I was just wondering if --

-- when you argue in circles like this, your armor spins too, or just your body inside the armor. I mean, do we see the whole thing spin, or just hear it and see a suit or armor sort of rattling?I guess the readers can decide for themselves eh Mr. JP?

You continue....
IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

If the early church can produce a Marcion or a Valentinius, and if it can produce a false view of the salvific efficacy of baptism, it sure could miss the trib described in Matt. 24. Heck, why do you think the Mormons can cull so much grease from the patristics? Some of them made the same mistakes in exegesis Joseph Smith did.You are missing the point just as Dee Dee is missing the point. The Great Tribulation happening or not happening is NOT ONLY a theological debate in its nature.

Had it happened it would be woven into world history in a variety of ways.

And uh, JP.... keep your day job. :D

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:
You disagree with my assessment of the phrase "Great Tribulation" but have yet to deal with my exegetical evidence to any geater extent than "uh uh!!!." Uh... don't you mean "Localized Great Tribulation"? :rolleyes:

Now please answer my question I have asked 3 times now.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:01 PM
Dear Knight:


You are missing the point just as Dee Dee is missing the point. The Great Tribulation happening or not happening is NOT ONLY a theological debate in its nature.

Had it happened it would be woven into world history in a variety of ways.


No, again, you are missing the point that first one must decide exegetically what the passage means before we start looking at the historical evidence. You have not dealt with the exegetical evidence I have presented whatsoever. And once that foundation is laid, the FACT is that it is woven into history in exactly the way it would be expected. Have you ever heard of a minor first century historian named Josephus? He has a book out you might want to read. :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:04 PM
Uh... don't you mean "Localized Great Tribulation"?

Now please answer my question I have asked 3 times now.

I mean exactly what the Bible means and I am waiting for your exegetical rebuttal. Your question has been answered as you leave numerous ones unanswered.

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:23 PM
Dear Knight:


IF.... The Great Tribulation (which is described) in the Bible actually came to pass in 70AD the Great Tribulation went COMPLETELY unnoticed by the world and the early church leaders and followers.

Well your IF is dead wrong. All I have to produce is one quote to disprove “COMPLETELY.” You should try to not overstate your case, it is embarrassingly easy to defeat that way.

Josephus - “The war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been he greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of.” (eyewitness)


In other words....
The destruction of Jerusalem was obviously recorded, but in NO WAY was it recorded as being the Great Tribulation described in the Bible.

Arf, arf, give that begged question a bone. If you would deal with the exegetical evidence perhaps we could get to this point.


If anything...
As Jerry has so fantastically documented the early church documented the destruction of Jerusalem was anything BUT the Great Tribulation.

Well, you will need to produce this fantastic documentation since he seems to have posted it on a screen that only you can see. The tripe he has posted proves no such thing. It may prove that this worldwide calamity that you have decided it means did not happen, but that is not what the preterists are allegedly to begin with. So you are simply doing what I said you have been doing all along, your assume your position and then point to your assumption as your proof.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


I mean exactly what the Bible means and I am waiting for your exegetical rebuttal. Your question has been answered as you leave numerous ones unanswered. Back at ya!

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 06:34 PM
Wow, way to answer. Not! :kiss: You have no position to argue from besides your own unproven opinion that our interpretation of the scope of the phrase Great Tribulation in Matthew 24 is incorrect. I have provided more than ample Biblical support pages back which remains unanswered while I have still answered numerous questions posed to me without reciprocity from you. I guess I love ya anyway.

jpholding
January 22nd, 2003, 07:13 PM
Oy,

I guess the readers can decide for themselves eh Mr. JP?

I vote for interior spin. It's the only way to explain the constant rattling.

You continue....You are missing the point just as Dee Dee is missing the point. The Great Tribulation happening or not happening is NOT ONLY a theological debate in its nature.

No point is being missed unless it is the one on the lance you broke while picking litter in the park, to wit:

Had it happened it would be woven into world history in a variety of ways.

More vague prattle! The questions are:

1) Who would notice the events? Lots, obviously -- but only 5% of the population was literate and little has survived from the first century. But of course only believers would connect it with Matt. 24. Among non-believers, we say it is recorded in Josephus, a bit in Tacitus...that's about all we'd expect given the historians of the day and their subject matter.

2) Who would recognize it as the "Great Trib"? So far the only answer has been "the patristics" and these guys were not all sharp tools in the shed by any means, as I noted, and to which you are pertinently ignoring a reply.


And uh, JP.... keep your day job.

This IS my day job. Need some rust remover? :D

JP

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
1) Who would notice the events? Lots, obviously -- but only 5% of the population was literate and little has survived from the first century. But of course only believers would connect it with Matt. 24. Among non-believers, we say it is recorded in Josephus, a bit in Tacitus...that's about all we'd expect given the historians of the day and their subject matter.

2) Who would recognize it as the "Great Trib"? So far the only answer has been "the patristics" and these guys were not all sharp tools in the shed by any means, as I noted, and to which you are pertinently ignoring a reply.


And uh, JP.... keep your day job.

This IS my day job. Need some rust remover? :D

JP Preterists are just plain bizarre! If the Great Tribulation could go unnoticed at the time of its occurrence (which is what you are arguing) what possible purpose could it have served as a prophetic event?

After all Jesus said regarding the Great Tribulation.....
Matthew 24:25 See, I have told you beforehand.

Asked another way...
What would the point of a prophecy like the Great Tribulation be if when the prophecy was fulfilled it would go unnoticed?

I don't seem to remember Jesus including the Great Tribulation going unnoticed in His prophecy regarding the Great Tribulation.

Now let's see did the verse go.....

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. *Yet this Tribulation will go completely unnoticed by My people."

* Added for comedic value :D

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 08:29 PM
I see that only one paragraph of my response to the Zechariah issue is ever quoted... so as a gift, here is the rest of my response in the BRIII. I had provided more detail at another point in a thread outside the Battle, but unfortunately that thread appears to have been culled.....

First I will comment on Jerry’s misguided reliance on Zech. 12 and the important point that I made that he conveniently left out. He gets really excited over my statement that the decline of the Roman Empire can be dated to the destruction of Jerusalem and exclaims:

quote:

But Dee Dee,can´t you read? The Lord says that He will destroy the nations IN THAT DAY!!!



But Jerry can’t you read?? The battle described is fought on horseback. What part of that phrase is confusing?? The “horse” or the “back”?? Jerry seems to be insinuating that the phrase “in that day” indicates an immediate event (even within one literal day), not an event that can be understood over a period of time. Horsefeathers. The Bible shows great fluidity with the phrase “that day”. In fact the text in question (Zech. 12:9) merely says “in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations…” Other texts within Zechariah itself prove his wooden literalism to be nonsense. Zech. 2:11; 3:10;13:3-4; 14:8-9; 14:20-21 are passages which Jerry would take to be occurring over an entire “Millennium,” and yet this “thousand years” (in Jerry’s view) is called “that day.” Here are just some other Scripture references using “that day” which refer to a period of time Ex 13:8; Jdg 18:1; 1 Sam 18:18; Is 2:11, 4:2, 11:10, 17:7; Hos 2:16. He is once again gored on his own horn. That has got to hurt. And to really gut Zech. 12-14 from being of any usefulness to Jerry, Zech. 13:7-9 places this destruction of Jerusalem squarely within the first century when the Shepherd is struck. I am sure that Jerry will just try and shoehorn in a handy-dandy gap, but if he tries that I have another weapon in my arsenal

Jerry says,
quote:

But I say,why shouldn’t we take these verses literally?



Yes, Jerry why shouldn’t we believe that it is an ancient battle fought on horseback??

Wow, Jerry actually believes that a future battle against Jerusalem will be fought on horseback! Why aren’t the Palestinians building up a considerable cavalry if this the optimum way to attack the Jews?? This would be hysterical if Jerry weren’t actually serious. Will Jerry be consistent and also believe, according to Ezekiel 38 and 39, that “Russia” will also fight Israel on horseback with swords and shields (38:4), bows and arrows (39:3), and wooden javelins and spears (39:10)? Notice also that Israelites will not need to go out to the forests to gather wood (39:10). Really? How many Israelites do you think are doing that today?? And notice the targets of the enemy attack: silver, gold, and cattle (39:13). Does Jerry really think that anyone is interested in Israel’s livestock?? Where are the Cobra helicopters Jerry?

Hmm, the Encyclopedia Americana is Jerry’s scholarly source to refute my statement on the decline of the Roman Empire? He claims that since Rome expanded in size it could not have been declining. Jerry’s simplistic rendering of complex vagaries of history would also be laughable if he were not serious. Noted historian Edward Gibbon documented that it was Rome’s expansion that was the beginning of its fall as follows, “But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.”

Dee Dee Warren
January 22nd, 2003, 08:30 PM
More on Zechariah to follow, but unfortunately I have to write it from scratch.

Knight
January 22nd, 2003, 08:46 PM
Dee Dee my last post was a response to JP but I would love for you to comment on it as well.

Hitch
January 22nd, 2003, 09:01 PM
Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. *Yet this Tribulation will go completely unnoticed by My people." Yeah really. Everbody knows the Temple is still really there and the Pharisees have increased in power during the last two millennia. All that trash about the city being destroyed is obviously a lie,,, we see Jerusalem on TV practically every night dont we? Especially the part when they say it was all proof that the carpenter was really a true prophet. Well Im with you.

If he ever did say anything like that ,,,I mean nation warring against nation,,kingdom against kingdom,,, Temple being overthrown,,, yup somebody would have noticed.

smilax
January 22nd, 2003, 09:32 PM
Matthew xxiv, 21: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Luke xxi, 24: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Interesting parallel... So even if this tribulation is the greatest ever, it is only locally the greatest, (the greatest in Jerusalem,) not the greatest in the world. Matthew, after all, is written with Jews in mind.

Context, context, context. The fact that some passages literal while others are symbolic should be enough to show that how literal your hermeneutic is has zero correlation with the proper interpretation.

Solly
January 23rd, 2003, 03:55 AM
Smilax, welcome back, good to see you again :D . Did you have a good break?
Hope your sword didn't get blunt, cos you'll need it, the Right Dividers need rightly dividing!! ;)

DD, I rest my case :doh:

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 05:32 AM
Oy vey,

Preterists are just plain bizarre! If the Great Tribulation could go unnoticed at the time of its occurrence (which is what you are arguing) what possible purpose could it have served as a prophetic event?

Lift thy visor and pay attention!

It WAS noticed.

Those who noticed best and did the best documentation were unbelievers (Josephus, Tacitus).

The patristics quoted were just not very sharp tools. Heck man, only one (Didymus the Blind) so much as knew Hebrew; you think they would recognize Hebrew figures of speech?!?

Matthew 24:98 See, I have told you for the 765th time, and you are still dense.

You'd be hard pressed to deny human ability to misunderstand things and miss prophetic significance. Uh, how many years did Israel and Judah miss the implementation of the Deuteronomic curses...?

JP

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 06:53 AM
Dear Knight:

I wanted to acknowledge your request to me to also comment on that post directed to JP. I will do so as soon as possible, and I have some thoughts to add not addressed by JP so it will not be redundant.

Solly
January 23rd, 2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Preterists are just plain bizarre! If the Great Tribulation could go unnoticed at the time of its occurrence (which is what you are arguing -no it is what you are misunderstanding) what possible purpose could it have served as a prophetic event?

Not as bizarre as DFs who continue to use a phrase that does not appear in scripture, and which is actually a patchwork of ideas. THE Great Tribulation? I haven't seen inside such a book, but is this possibly one of the inspired headings in the equally inspired SRB?


After all Jesus said regarding the Great Tribulation.....

Matthew 24:25 See, I have told you beforehand.
Asked another way...
What would the point of a prophecy like the Great Tribulation be if when the prophecy was fulfilled it would go unnoticed? bold added

Possibly because you are looking for an eighteen wheeler where none should be. I am sure the Jews noticed it though, as did the Christians who were living there at the time. And it is not, surely, beyond the bounds of reason that some of those disciples would still be around in 70ad as leaders of the church, just as John was alledgedly still around in 90ad?


I don't seem to remember Jesus including the Great Tribulation going unnoticed in His prophecy regarding the Great Tribulation.
Now let's see did the verse go.....
Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. *Yet this Tribulation will go completely unnoticed by My people."
* Added for comedic value :D

No, more like: Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. *Yet this tribulation will be completely misunderstood by My people in the name of defending the indefensible."
*Added for risible effect

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by smilax
Matthew xxiv, 21: "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Luke xxi, 24: "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Interesting parallel... So even if this tribulation is the greatest ever, it is only locally the greatest, (the greatest in Jerusalem,) not the greatest in the world. Matthew, after all, is written with Jews in mind.


Smilax, you apparently haven't heard the answer:

"Jesus made two similar discourses at about the same time! One was about 70 AD and the other was about the future Great Tribulation!"

In the great tradition of:

Q: "When Jesus said "Blessed are you who whine" in the Sermon on the Mount, it's in the 3rd person in Matt and thd 2nd person in Luke. Which is correct?"

A: "Both! Maybe he said both in the same discourse -- once in 2nd person the other in 3rd. Or maybe he said one while on the Mount and the other after he walked down on the plain."


:crackup:

JP

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 09:01 AM
Dee Dee accuses me of lacking reading skills,but yet she provided NOTHING to back up her charges against me.Yes,she provided more proof that she simply will not believe what Scripture says when it doesn´t fit her mistaken beliefs.

She also demonstrates that she understands nothing about warfare.She seems to think that the idea of fighting on horseback is some obsolete art and that this type of warfare will never happen.She should talk to the USA Military and inform them that they are wasting their time by continuing to have a Calvary.

She proves that she is nothing more than a modern day Sadducee.If she would have lived before the Lord was born at Bethelem,she would have poured her scorn upon the following verse as well:

"Therefore,the Lord Himself shall give you a sign;Behold,the virgin shall conceive,and bear a Son,and shall call His name Immanuel"(Isa.7:14).

Since by her experience she could not conceive of such a thing happening,she would put her REASON above REVELATION and deny what Scripture so plainly states.I am sure that she would have a grand old time deriding those who believe that God will fulfill this verse just as it is written.

And if you need further proof of her unbelief,she has aleardy provided it by her interpretation of the prophecies of Zechariah.When it is revealed that the Lord will fight against all the nations that will come against Jerusalem in the future,Dee Dee says that this refers to Jerusalem in 70AD when Jerusalem was utterly destoyed.

She twists the Scriptures until she has them saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they actually say.And with that she is real proud of herself!

In His grace,--Jerry

yashcheritsiy
January 23rd, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by jpholding
Tut tut. Knight asked for more preterists to stop in and make his day? Oh dear. Did I just hear a can opener? :D

I shall return in the morning once I have read back through this exchange...meanwhile one may peruse

weblinks deleted...

There goes Knight again, reading a hyperbolic ancient text like a modern literal news report... :doh:

JP

Greetings,

Ah yes, JP, blaming everything on "hyperbolic ancient texts" which you can't explain and/or which shoots preterism down like slow duck, eh?

If you want to allegorise, well, you go boy! :thumb:

I'll prefer to allegorise only that which the context (and not theological outrage) suggests should be allegorised.

Yashcheritsiy

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 10:12 AM
Dear Forum:

I am posting this for two reasons:

1) I am new to TOL and not every one knows me and may take some of the things I say in the wrong way.

2) In light of recent post on other threads on TOL that seem to be of a personal attack nature, I just wanted to clarify where I am coming from.

With that said:

Some of my post on this tread have had a somewhat (ok very) sarcastic tone. I in no way intend for this to be or to be taken as a personal attack on any of my "opponents", and I do not consider there similar statements a personal attack on me.

I consider eschatology to be a non-salvation issue and therefore, in the big picture I consider my "opponents" in this debate as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I use sarcasm because it is an effective rhetorical tool used in a debate and it makes the debate a whole lot more interesting. I like using it and I like when it is used against me.

This is mainly directed to those here at TOL who do are reading this thread, but not participating. I assume that my "opponents" in the debate already know this because they can give it with the best of them. And I do make an effort to not use sarcasm or "inflamatory" language against someone unless I percieve that they have used a similar tactic agasint me or one of my "allies"

Sorry for the sap Solly. ;)

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 10:16 AM
Yes,they not only are forced to allegorize every prophecy that does not fit their distorted views,but they prove over and over that they can also delude their minds into believing things which are simply unbelievable.

For instance,their own site,the preteristarchive.com says,"Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil..."

So they admit that Irenaeus and Polycarp were companions,and that Polycarp studied under John,the very author of the Revelation.If there is any man´s testimony outside of the Apostles that we can trust in regard to things like the antichrist,it would be Irenaeus.And it would be pure folly to even assert that Irenaeus would not know whether or not the events concerning the antichrist had come to pass or not.

But there are those BRILLIANT scholars taking part in these discussions who would attempt to undermine what he says by saying that he did not even have a knowledge of the languages of the OT.But that same person must not understand that John,as well as Polycarp and Irenaeus,could all speak and write in the Greek language.

And if anyone has even bothered to read the writings of Irenaeus it is obvious that he was very serious when it came to the revealed things of God.So one must delude their minds to believe that Irenaeus would not have a knowledge as to whether the things concerning the "great tribulation" have come to pass or not.

In Book Five,Chapter XXV,"The Fruad,Pride,and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist as Described by Daniel and Paul",Irenaeus writes that the reign of Antichrist REMAINS IN THE FUTURE:

"1.And not only by the particulars already mentioned,but also by means of the EVENTS WHICH SHALL OCCUR IN THE TIME OF ANTICHRIST is it shown..."

2....in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place...

We also read the following:

"But he (John) indicates the number of the name now (the mark of the beast),that WHEN THIS MAN COMES we may avoid him,being aware of who he is"("Against Heresies 5.30.4).

"For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just,which takes place AFTER THE COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST,and the destruction of ALL NATIONS under his rule..."("Against Heresies",5.35.1).

There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a serious stundent of the Holy Scriptures,so how are we supposed to believe (even though he was a companion of Polycarp,who was a student of the Apostle John)John) that he would be IGNORANT of the fact that the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" had already come and gone?

I would suggest that the only way that anyone could believe this is by DELUDING their mind!

Not only that,but there is not any evidence that even one of the Christians who lived in the second century believed that the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" had come and gone.

But despite all this,there are those who will point to the testimony of unbelievers in their failed efforts to convince anyone gullible enough to believe their "fables".

In His grace,--Jerry

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by yashcheritsiy
I'll prefer to allegorise only that which the context (and not theological outrage) suggests should be allegorised.Okay. So when do we read apocalyptic visions literally, and where do we draw the line? When a bear takes over the world? When a giant bowl of fermented grape juice hovers over our heads? Why don't we give God a body while we're at it?

On the other hand, the context (first-century Jewish audience, along with the time markers) demands fulfillment (at least in the primary sense) during that span.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 10:29 AM
So they admit that Irenaeus and Polycarp were companions,and that Polycarp studied under John,the very author of the Revelation.If there is any man´s testimony outside of the Apostles that we can trust in regard to things like the antichrist,it would be Irenaeus.

..... and why can't we trust Irenaeus when he says that Jesus lived to be fifty years old?? And why can't we trust Irenaeus when he says that the Church is Israel?? What an ad hoc arbitrary tripe salad. The Bible is full of records of people who studied under the Apostle's themselves and fell into grievous error..... and who is talking about putting inordiant credence into the words of men?

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 10:31 AM
But there are those BRILLIANT scholars taking part in these discussions who would attempt to undermine what he says by saying that he did not even have a knowledge of the languages of the OT.But that same person must not understand that John,as well as Polycarp and Irenaeus,could all speak and write in the Greek language.



Err, Jerry, we have been done this road before. You do realize that the OT was written originally in Hebrew don't you?? That was what JP said. You trying to trump that by claiming that they knew the language of a translation (the LXX) is just plain dumb. You might as well claim that I know the ancient languages because I can read an English translation.

Solly
January 23rd, 2003, 10:42 AM
Aaahhh, Dee Dee

You spoke to him!!

----
Jerry


Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
There is no doubt that Irenaeus was a serious stundent of the Holy Scriptures,so how are we supposed to believe (even though he was a companion of Polycarp,who was a student of the Apostle John) that he would be IGNORANT of the fact that the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" had already come and gone?



A very serious student indeed, as were all the church fathers. None more serious than Origen perhaps, who was never sainted because of his errors. And where did all this serious get them? The Roman Catholic Church. (apologies to any RCs reading)

Look, look everybody, I'm right because everybody who agrees with me in the Church Fathers are right as well!

Jerry Shugart?

















No, the Pope!!

When do you make that pilgrimage Jerry, since you put so much trust in the ECF?

Perhaps you missed my post where I pointed out that Thomas Oden can assemble a catena of quotes from the ECF showing they believed in Justification by faith alone, and a Catholic writer could just as easily do the same showing justification by works.

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 11:04 AM
I'm Back!!!!


Originally posted by Knight
Faramir and Dee Dee I want to comment on your above mocking of me with serious suggestion. When you hold a view that greatly differs from the mainstream thought you have to expect that others will want to investigate with question upon question. I find that very reasonable. As Dee Dee already knows I hold views myself that are hardly "mainstream" and I welcome question upon question! In fact..... I love to answer those questions upon questions. I even like to answer those questions with a super brief answers so I can more quickly get to their next question. More ground gets covered that way.

And sometimes you may need to answer a question with more or less detail a second time just for clarification purposes.

Just a suggestion for you folks to ponder.

Just a suggestion, when you are being mocked, make sure you know why. :doh:

Did you read this (emphasis mine):


Dispensationalist: But what about these ten other questions that will take up every waking of your day to answer so I can throw ten more at you without ever really dealing with the ones you have already answered. Oh, I see, you won't answer now. Chicken!!

I take your questions seriously. That is why I am here. I love being challenged. I have no problem answering any question that you ask. What I have a problem with is the portion of the above quote that is in bold.

You (the plural you, not just Knight) ask us (also plural ;) ) a question. Fine. We answer the question. Fine. Then you (plural) tell us we are wrong, without saying why, without addressing the issues we raised. Then you expect us to answer more questions. Then you accuse us of not answering. If this is your idea of an argument I can give you a link to a Monty Python sketch that you would love :D .

You are constantly attacking the preterist position (I have no problem with this is a debate forum, I expect that). Then when the preterist answer, you tell us we are wrong (again, no problem, I don't really expect you to agree with us). The you tell us we are wrong, without addressing the issues raised in our answer and then ask us a million more question and accuse us of being "chicken" because we can not address one million of your questions (that figure is of course hyperbolic :rolleyes: )

I put the area that I have a problem in bold for your convenience.

It seems to me that this is the dispensationalist tactic:


Hey lets make these preterist look stupid :eek: by asking them so many question that they can not possibly answer them all. If they do answer a question lets just avoid answering there well reasoned response, by asking more questions and maybe no one will notice. Hey were not falling for it.

Please, bring the questions on. Iwill be happy to answer any question you have. All I ask is that you show me the same respect when I have a question for you.


Note: edited to add last two paragraphs that accidentally got cut.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren


Err, Jerry, we have been done this road before. You do realize that the OT was written originally in Hebrew don't you?? That was what JP said. You trying to trump that by claiming that they knew the language of a translation (the LXX) is just plain dumb. You might as well claim that I know the ancient languages because I can read an English translation.

Err,Dee Dee,are you so ignorant that you are not even aware that not all of the OT was written in Hebrew?The point I was making is the fact that both Polycarp and Irenaeus,as well as John,could speak in the Greek languge.And since Polycarp was a pupil of John,then there would be no reason why Irenaeus could not understand the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

But instead of discussing these issues,you ignore the message and put all your effort into attempting to discredit the messenger.Instead of addressing the things I said,you put words in my mouth that I never said so that you can say that I am "plain dumb"!

Earlier,you accused me of lacking "reading comprehension",but then you failed to cite one instance to back up your claim.Instead of discussing the issues,your efforts are put into attacking the messanger.But then when challenged to prove what you said,you come up empty handed!

If you want an example of something that is just PLAIN DUMB,just go to what jpholding said that the words of some of the profets were nothing but "trash talk"!

Well,the Lord Jesus Himself quoted the same EXACT PROPHETS who he accuses of talking trash.That is about what I expect from those who follow the "fables" that are taught by the preterists.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 11:43 AM
Err,Dee Dee,are you so ignorant that you are not even aware that not all of the OT was written in Hebrew?The point I was making is the fact that both Polycarp and Irenaeus,as well as John,could speak in the Greek languge.And since Polycarp was a pupil of John,then there would be no reason why Irenaeus could not understand the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

But instead of discussing these issues,you ignore the message and put all your effort into attempting to discredit the messenger.Instead of addressing the things I said,you put words in my mouth that I never said so that you can say that I am "plain dumb"!

And here is exhibit one in the case of Jerry's Lack of Reading Comprehension. The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic... and that helps your still plain dumb assertion that certin ECF could speak and read Greek in what way??? Oh it doesn't. And notice I did not call you as a person just plain dumb, you accept Christ as your savior, so I am sure you have some sense somewhere... I called your statement just plain dumb, and you have compounded the dumbess of it tenfold and are showing it off like a child who just made his first successful use of the potty.

And why did not Ireneaus understand the Scriptures when it teaches that Christ died in his thirties? And why did not Ireneaus understand the Scriptures in your view when he said that the promises of Israel fell to the Church.

I hope you bought a nice basket for those cherries you are picking.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 11:44 AM
Solly,

You make such a good argument as to why we should believe that Irenaeus was in error when he taught that the great tribulation and the antichrist had not yet come.

He was never "sainted" by the church at Rome!

None of the second century Christians believed that the "great tribulation" or the "antichrist" had come and gone,but you still insist that it did.And if you will read the post concerning the Catholic origin of the teaching of the preterists,you will see that this teaching was not originally a part of the teaching of the church at Rome until many of hundreds of years later.

In His grace,--Jerry

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 11:44 AM
So, Jerry, do you believe in baptismal regeneration?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:1: "It happens that their tradition respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of 'redemption' as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith."

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 11:46 AM
Now Smilax, you are not expecting Jerry to be consistent are you? That has never been his strong point.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 11:49 AM
Exhibit Two in the Case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart:


You make such a good argument as to why we should believe that Irenaeus was in error when he taught that the great tribulation and the antichrist had not yet come.

He was never "sainted" by the church at Rome!

Solly was speaking of Origien not Irenaeus. Bzzztt!!!!

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
He was never "sainted" by the church at Rome!... What? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm calls him "St. Irenaeus." Solly was talking about Origen.
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Now Smilax, you are not expecting Jerry to be consistent are you? That has never been his strong point.Then again, this is the guy who used Isaiah i, 18 (yay, English translations) to attempt to prove Aristotlean logic was a Biblical mandate while trying to show that already/not yet was self-contradictory. And now he tells us we're exalting reason over Scripture. Right.

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Exhibit Two in the Case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart:



Solly was speaking of Origien not Irenaeus. Bzzztt!!!!

No fair Dee Dee you got to do point one. I wanted to get point two. You know it was so obvious that I would have seen it as soon as I saw it.


Whispers to Jerry: Hey Jerry. Slow down, breath. Speed reading is not your forte.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 11:58 AM
Dear Faramir:

Don't you fret, there is enough to go around.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 12:03 PM
There is a big difference from making errors in regard to some of the doctrines of Christ and not knowing whether or not an event described as "great tribulation,such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time" has come to pass or not.

We are suppose to delude our mind into believing that these events happened but yet not a one of the members of the church in the second century were even aware that they had happened.

Dee Dee brings up the point about Irenaeus´belief that the church is Israel,and I have already started a thread that explains exactly how that error came into being.And there was not even one preterist that even attempted to disprove what I said.But here they are now protesting!Well,go to that thread and you can find out exactly how that error came about.

And the verse you quoted could just as easily be understood to refer to the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,that same baptism where we are given life when we are baptized into the Body of Christ.

Again,the preterists expect us to believe that the greatest destruction of all time came and went,but all those in the church in the second century were unaware of that fact.The antichrist had come and gone,but they remained in the dark and continued to believe that his coming remained in the future.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:05 PM
And all of the above blather has been soundly refuted but of course there has been no interaction with the arguments presented.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:07 PM
Dee Dee brings up the point about Irenaeus´belief that the church is Israel,and I have already started a thread that explains exactly how that error came into being.

Yes, please do, it is laughable. The ECF thought the destruction of Jerusalem was the end of the Jews, and yet then the argument is made that they did not think the destruction of Jerusalem was a big deal at all. One cannot have it both ways. They clearly saw the destruction as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in the Discourse and... since Jesus was clear that the Tribulation was focused on the Jews... anyone here will be hard pressed to then say that these same ECF saw the Tribulation on the Jews as yet future and at the same time believing that AD70 was the end of the Jews. Jerry has posed what is called in the legal profession mutual exclusively arguments. He cannot be right on both threads.... for his point on that one, defeats his points here. He is actually wrong on both threads... but let's not get too picky.

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
And the verse you quoted could just as easily be understood to refer to the BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,that same baptism where we are given life when we are baptized into the Body of Christ.Obviously not. The Catholics don't think so, either. Check the next thing he writes:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:21:2: "They maintain that those who have attained to perfect knowledge must of necessity be regenerated into that power which is above all. For it is otherwise impossible to find admittance within the Pleroma, since this it is which leads them down into the depths of Bythus. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins, but the redemption brought in by that Christ who descended upon Him, was for perfection; and they allege that the former is animal, but the latter spiritual. And the baptism of John was proclaimed with a view to repentance, but the redemption by Jesus was brought in for the sake of perfection. And to this He refers when He says, 'And I have another baptism to be baptized with, and I hasten eagerly towards it.' Moreover, they affirm that the Lord added this redemption to the sons of Zebedee, when their mother asked that they might sit, the one on His right hand, and the other on His left, in His kingdom, saying, 'Can ye be baptized with the baptism which I shall be baptized with?' Paul, too, they declare, has often set forth, in express terms, the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and this was the same which is handed down by them in so varied and discordant forms."

Jerry, the Bible doesn't mention "the antichrist."

And I'm waiting for your response on the thread about spiritual Israel.

The errors about the efficacy of baptism for salvation, of course, are even more important than whether this great tribulation occurred, because it affects salvation.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Exhibit Two in the Case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart:



Solly was speaking of Origien not Irenaeus. Bzzztt!!!!

Dee Dee,

You have not yet even given your "evidence" in case one.Perhaps you believe that no one will notice.

And yes,I did overlook the fact that Solly was speaking of Origien and not Irenaeus.

I just never even imagined that he would even present such a pitiful answer.He uses a Christian who lived in the third century in his unsuccessful effort to discredit the testimony of a Christian who lived in the second century.

That is the best he could do,and it still remains a few notches above anything that you have said.

I am glad you see now that the OT was not just wriiten in Hebrew.

In His grace,--Jerry

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
I am glad you see now that the OT was not justwriiten in Hebrew.Relevance... Pretty please with a cherry on top?

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:18 PM
Relevance... Pretty please with a cherry on top?

He's got plenty he has a picked from the ECF.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:20 PM
You have not yet even given your "evidence" in case one.Perhaps you believe that no one ill note.

I most certainly did. And not to be picky, but it was Exhibit One in the case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart. I could be a real bugger and make this Exhibit Three, but I will let it slide.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Faramir:

Don't you fret, there is enough to go around. Oh give me a break....... is it any wonder why people accuse preterists of acting like a bunch of immature goofballs. Never in my life have I seen a group of people make such mountains out of such molehills.

It isn't like any of you haven't made an error here or there.

I think Jerry is doing a great job in bringing to light one of the most flawed aspects of preterism.

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
And not to be picky, but it was Exhibit One in the case of Reading Comprehension Versus Shugart. I could be a real bugger and make this Exhibit Three, but I will let it slide.He should just plead insane and be done with it.
Originally posted by Knight
It isn't like any of you haven't made an error here or there.If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by smilax
He should just plead insane and be done with it.If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor. Consider this an official warning. Jerry DID say he made a mistake. If you wish to debate the issues then fine.... otherwise please take your innappropriate comments to another website.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:30 PM
I think Jerry is doing a great job in bringing to light one of the most flawed aspects of preterism.

And each of those arguments within arguments have been soundly dealt without much of anything in the way of counter-rebuttal from the oppositon.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 12:30 PM
Dee Dee,

You must have overlooked the fact that the ECF based their beliefs that ethnic Israel had been forever cast away because of the events that happened in the Bar Kokhba war of 132-135 A.D.

This has nothing t all to do with the desctruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

And I have previously posted that fact on this thread also,and at that time you did not say even one word.But here you are now again misrepresenting what I wrote.And not a one of the ECF ever said that the things which transpired at that time represented the "great tribulation" and the coming of the antichrist!

That only exists in your imagination.

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

And each of those arguments within arguments have been soundly dealt without much of anything in the way of counter-rebuttal from the oppositon. I COMPLETELY reject that assertion.

I would say that the basic premise of this thread has never been "dealt with" in that not a SINGLE ECF believed that the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD.

But that is the nature of debate. People sometimes have different definitions of "dealt with".

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:37 PM
Dear Jerry:

You are correct in that I did misunderstand your argument on the other thread as referring to 70AD. I stand corrected in that assumption, though that makes little difference to my final analysis which I will demonstate.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by smilax
He should just plead insane and be done with it.If he made a mistake, he should just say so instead of trying so very gracefully to turn it into another argument in his favor.

smilax,

If you will look at a post of mine that I wrote BEFORE you wrote your words,you will see that I did admit that I made a mistake.

Is that not enough for you?Perhaps you didn´t see it.But the fact remains that I did admit that I misread the words.

In His grace,--Jerry

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
If you will look at a post of mine that I wrote BEFORE you wrote your words,you will see that I did admit that I made a mistake.Yes. I didn't see it because I was typing up my reply before you had edited yours.

In any case...

I'm waiting for some answers, especially on the relevance of what the church fathers had to say.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:43 PM
Dear Knight:


I COMPLETELY reject that assertion.

I would say that the basic premise of this thread has never been "dealt with" in that not a SINGLE ECF believed that the Great Tribulation happened in 70AD.

But that is the nature of debate. People sometimes have different definitions of "dealt with".

But again, I would say that is simply a blanket statement by you. Many proofs and arguments and explanations, both historical and Scriptural, have been presented and been met with virtually nothing from the oppositon other than basically, Uh Uh, and a restatement of the original rebutted point. Debates are supposed to progress by each side substantively dealing with each other's arguments. That has not happened here in any meaningful way whatsoever on this thread.

And a shell game is being played (and I am not suggesting intentional deceit or bad motives or anything of the sort). Your above statement that NOT one ECF believed that the Great Trib happened in 70AD is wrong. Eusebius clearly did. But then you will say well Eusebius is too late.. and keep switching the stakes. I have provided quotes that certainly lend credence that many ECF even earlier did in fact hold this belief, but since they did not describe what you have predetermined the Great Trib must mean (and you never dealt with my Scriptural proofs on that phrase), you have dismissed them out of hand. But that is simply defining away your opposition, not defeating them, and is illegitimate. And as I have demonstrated the ECF is a two=headed viper... they believed that the Church was Israel... and there is NO ECF evidence your unique views on two gospels. You have never addressed my counter-challenges to your position in that regard and in fact have not answer very many direct questions that I have made to you and yet expect me to answer each of your. There is little or no reciprocity here.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 12:44 PM
Dee Dee,

Thanks for your admission that you misunderstood my argument on the other thread.It only proves that at one time or another all of us demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 12:48 PM
And you're welcome.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 01:08 PM
smilax,

You say that you are waiting for some answers concerning the relevance of what the church fathers had to say.

First of all,I have always said that the final authority for the truth of God is the Holy Scriptures.However,in my discussions with the preterists I have found that although they say the same thing,you couldn´t tell it by their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

For instance,the Scriptures make it plain that at some point in time the Lord will fight against all the nations that come against Jerusalem and He Himself says that "in that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem"(Zech.12:9;14:2,3).

However,those who say that their final authority is also the Scriptures say that this event refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.I cannot believe that that event could ever be in reference to a time when the Lord says He will fight and destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

But no matter how much I protest that they are wrong,they will still not hear.

So since I believe that their beliefs are based on the teaching of man I have given them some testimony from the earliest Christians.

For instance,their own site,the preteristarchive.com says,"Irenaeus,Bishop of Lyons,companion of Polycarp,John´s pupil..."

So they admit that Irenaeus and Polycarp were companions,and that Polycarp studied under John,the very author of the Revelation.If there is any man´s testimony outside of the Apostles that we can trust in regard to things like the antichrist,it would be Irenaeus.And it would be pure folly to even assert that Irenaeus would not know whether or not the events concerning the antichrist had come to pass or not.

In Book Five,Chapter XXV,"The Fruad,Pride,and Tyrannical Kingdom of Antichrist as Described by Daniel and Paul",Irenaeus writes that the reign of Antichrist REMAINS IN THE FUTURE:

"1.And not only by the particulars already mentioned,but also by means of the EVENTS WHICH SHALL OCCUR IN THE TIME OF ANTICHRIST is it shown..."

2....in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,as the Lord also declares:'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place...

We also read the following:

"But he (John) indicates the number of the name now (the mark of the beast),that WHEN THIS MAN COMES we may avoid him,being aware of who he is"("Against Heresies 5.30.4).

"For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just,which takes place AFTER THE COMING OF THE ANTICHRIST,and the destruction of ALL NATIONS under his rule..."("Against Heresies",5.35.1).

Not only that,but there is not any evidence that even one of the Christians who lived in the second century believed that the "great tribulation" and the "antichrist" had come and gone.

So the reason I started this thread was in the hope that if they will not believe the plain meaning of the prophecies of Zechariah,at least they might believe the testimony of the earliest church fathers.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 01:15 PM
However,those who say that their final authority is also the Scriptures say that this event refers to the time in 70AD when Jerusalem was utterly destroyed.I cannot believe that that event could ever be in reference to a time when the Lord says He will fight and destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

Jerry that is a mischaracterization of everything I have ever said to you, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is inadvertant and that you will await my futher clarification.

And where in the Bible does it say that the antichrist will have anything to do with the Great Tribulation? It doesn't. You have assumed that. The phrase "great trib" is taken from the Olivet Discourse and I provided proof that some ECF did in fact hold that event as past. You have not dealt with that or substantively interacted with the arguments presented in any other way than simply repeating your first rebutted points.

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 01:35 PM
Jerry understands decontextualizations as honoring to God and keeps changing the subject. He and the others have been shown countless times that closeness in time is no guarantee of accuracy and that the patristics did and could make horrendous mistakes. To this the answer has been: " ".

Knight refuses to answer arguments and keeps his visor shut.

Yash hit and run like a refrigerator magnet, speaking vaguely of "context" but not actually arguing anything about it.

While I was out at the library this morning, that's the sum and total of the opposition for the hours and three pages while I was gone.

No wonder productivity in America in on the decline. :eek:

JP

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Knight:

But again, I would say that is simply a blanket statement by you.Some blankets are so very helpful!

You continue...
Many proofs and arguments and explanations, both historical and Scriptural, have been presented and been met with virtually nothing from the oppositon other than basically, Uh Uh, and a restatement of the original rebutted point. Debates are supposed to progress by each side substantively dealing with each other's arguments. That has not happened here in any meaningful way whatsoever on this thread.I could make an identical assertion to what you have posted above.

You continue...
And a shell game is being played (and I am not suggesting intentional deceit or bad motives or anything of the sort). Your above statement that NOT one ECF believed that the Great Trib happened in 70AD is wrong. Eusebius clearly did. But then you will say well Eusebius is too late..Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Knight refuses to answer arguments and keeps his visor shut.
Say what?

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 02:02 PM
Dee Dee,

In case you missed it,I will repost the words of Irenaeus concering the Lord´s words as spoken in the Olivet Discourse:

"...in which Temple the enemy SHALL sit,endeavoring to show himself as Christ,AS THE LORD ALSO DECLARES: 'But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet,standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand),then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains;and he who is upon the house-top,let him come down to take anything out of the house:for there shall then be great hardship,such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now,nor ever shall be"("Adversus haereses"Book V,#2).

In His grace,--Jerry

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 02:09 PM
Say what?

The number of things I have put down here that you and Jerry have ignored could make a list longer than the Green Giant's scarf.


Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

CLANG! There goes that visor again...I hear spinning noises...you want to move on, go right ahead. You've been shown that patristic ignorance is irrelevant because:

1) Not all patristics were so ignorant and did see some fulfillment.
2) They did not know Hebrew and could not be expected to have known Hebrew figures of speech that are the whole key to interpreting Matt. 24 and other related passages/books. Once again I recommend Caird's book, provided you are not too busy with the ones with Waldo in them. Or you can do like Jerry and pretend to honor God by reading the text newspaper-style. God loves ostriches.
3) They made mistakes on other issues, such as the efficacy of baptism -- coincidentally, another area where lack of knowledge of Hebrew thought hurt them. Hmph.
4) As a whole people are not very bright even at close quarters. Duh, what's that say? Don't steal that ox? Where do I find one? :doh:
5) You're pretty much begging the question of what the GT consists of anyway.

Offhand that's it. As a moderator of course you can stamp your steel toes and demand a fiat conclusion all you want. Just don't post a link to anything. I'll send you a lollipop, what flavor you want? :p

Hey Dee Dee, these guys ready to be taken out of the oven and carved yet?

JP

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 02:10 PM
Dear Knight:


Of course! And it would be completely relevant for me or Jerry to point out that fact! That is the very premise of this thread! The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

First, of all why would the rest of the world record the events of the Great Tribulation happening? Do you really think that the American Indians or the Mayans or the Aborigines or the Chinese cared about the destruction of Jerusalem? When you can answer that question we can move on. Second, I and others provided ECF and other historical evidence. The ball is in your court. You really need to stop riding on Jerry's coat-tails for two reasons, one, it is embarassing for you, and second, I would really like to hear what you have to say that is substantive rather than posturing.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 02:14 PM
5) You're pretty much begging the question of what the GT consists of anyway.

Bingo!!!

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 02:34 PM
jpholding,

I am very much interested in your earlier remarks that certain verses contained in the prophetic writings are "ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

Are you saying that you do not believe that the books which contain those words are not inspired of God?

I honestly want you to explain more fully your words that these verses are "trash talk".

The reason I ask is the fact that there are many people who say that the book of Daniel is NOT inspired of God.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 02:48 PM
Jerry I hope you do not mind me jumping in.... of course he believes they are inspired, why would you think otherwise? If I said certain words were poetic symbolism, would that mean that they are not inspired? No. He was simply identifying a literary device. One that I in fact demonstrated to Knight by showing other verses where such hyperbolic exaggeration was used, which verses remain unanswered by said Knight.

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Some blankets are so very helpful!


Wow what a come back. JP Quit while your ahead :rollseyes:

Originally posted by Knight

The earliest church fathers (nor the rest of the world for that matter) recorded the events of the Great Tribulation as having happened. Plain and simple! Why not just concede the point so that we could move on!

Why should we concede? You have yet to show why the earliest church fathers opinion is relevant in this matter. On the other hand us preterist have shown the following:

1) Some of the ECFs did support a fulfillment of the OD in AD70 (but they were not early enough for you, how convenient)

2) Many of the ECFs were inconsistent with there eschatology.

3) Many (most, all) of the ECFs made mistakes much worse than a bad eschatology.

4) Most of the arguments present by Dispensationalist in this thread assume that the "Great" Tribulation is a world wide all life as we know it affecting event. Of course the ECF never said that(world wide thing) happened. It did not happen. No preterist ever said it did.

5) The preterist have given reason why we believe that the tribulation in the OD and Rev. was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These reasons have been summarily ignored.

I could keep going, but I grow weary of repeating myself.

No one has so much as stated why the alleged lack of the ECF mention of the AD 70 being the "Great" tribulation should amount to a hill of beans.

Why not just concede the point so that we could move on?

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 03:19 PM
Let us examine more Scriptual passages and see if the events surrounding the "great tribulation" invole the whole world,or just Jerusalem.Anyone reading these verses can see how similiar the events described by Joel are to the events described by the Lord Jesus in His Olivet Discourse:

"And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth:blood,and fire,and plillars of smoke...and it shall come to pass that whosoever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be delivered;for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,as the Lord hath said,and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call.For,behold,in those days,and IN THAT TIME,when I shall bring the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,I will GATHER ALL NATIONS,and will bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat,and will judge them there for My people and for My heritage,Israel,whom they have scattered among the nations,and parted My land"(Joel2:30-32;3:1-2).

Here we can see the same events described as the "signs in the heavens"(Mt.24:29) and the judgment of the nations"(Mt.25:31-33).

Notice that the prophet Joel is implicit where he says that in the same time period when the signs shall appear in the heavens that the judgments of ALL the nations shall take place.

Is there any preterist that will tell us when this judgment of ALL NATIONS took place in the time around 70AD?

In His grace,--Jerry

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Jerry Shugart
jpholding,

I am very much interested in your earlier remarks that certain verses contained in the prophetic writings are "ancient 'trash talk'--no more."

Are you saying that you do not believe that the books which contain those words are not inspired of God?

I honestly want you to explain more fully your words that these verses are "trash talk".

The reason I ask is the fact that there are many people who say that the book of Daniel is NOT inspired of God.

In His grace,--Jerry

Hey Jerry, try reading JP in context (why do I even bother)

In today's, very literal society making exaggerated claims about yourself, your team or anything else is called "trash talk".

In the Ancient Near East, making exaggerated claims was a common and accepted way of communicating.

If I am not mistaken (and correct me if I am wrong) JP was trying to make an analogy that modern literalist readers would understand. (didn't work did it JP):confused:

I have read much of JP's work, and I have no doubt that he has great respect for the entire Bible.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 03:24 PM
As far as that Joel passage, we have the Apostle Peter telling us that it was being fulfilled in the first century. Hmm, do I believe Jerry or Peter? Guess who I am going to pick.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 03:46 PM
Well,Dee Dee,if these verses were ALL fulfilled at the day of Pentecost,then tell us when ALL THE NATIONS were judged.

But if I remember you correctly,you yourself said that the words of the Lord at Matthew 25:31-33 have not yet been fulfilled.

Isn´t that what you said previously?

In His grace,--Jerry

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Faramir
1) Some of the ECFs did support a fulfillment of the OD in AD70 (but they were not early enough for you, how convenient)Faramir, with all due respect the very premise of this thread is that the earliest church fathers did not record the events 70AD as being the great Tribulation.


2) Many of the ECFs were inconsistent with there eschatology.This point would help neither side of the argument.


3) Many (most, all) of the ECFs made mistakes much worse than a bad eschatology.We all agree.... but something as important as the Great Tribulation should get at least some notice.


4) Most of the arguments present by Dispensationalist in this thread assume that the "Great" Tribulation is a world wide all life as we know it affecting event. Of course the ECF never said that(world wide thing) happened. It did not happen. No preterist ever said it did.The "localized Great Tribulation" theory is comical. "All" may not mean "All" but it should most certainly mean at least "some", don't ya think? One third may not really mean one third but it certainly should mean more than one five hundredth dont ya think?


5) The preterist have given reason why we believe that the tribulation in the OD and Rev. was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These reasons have been summarily ignored.They have not been ignored in the least. They have been rejected! As Dee Dee so rightly points out you shouldn't overstate your case, it makes you look silly.

automatthew
January 23rd, 2003, 04:02 PM
Begged questions:

The whole thread has become very frustrating for this reader. I am undecided on the preterist/dispensationalist, primarily because I do not know enough about the Olivet and Revelation prophecies to judge. I would greatly like to hear the arguments for the dispensationalist interpretation that oppose the preterist interpretations of O&R. That's clearly not going to happen in this forum, as the dispensationalists insist on begging the question of the nature of the events the prophecies are describing.

Analogy:
---
Someone who is considered an Authority prophesies a certain event to come. The prophecy reads, in part, "On the day of the great event, a purple cow's hide will be displayed for everyone to see."

Two schools of interpretation soon arise with very different ideas of the prophecy's meaning; on one side, the Globalists; on the other, the Sacrificialists. The Globalists believe that, on the day in question, the whole sky over the entire world will have the appearance of purple fur. The Sacrificialists believe that a purple cow will be sacrificed and flayed, and the hide will be nailed to the roof of a Volkswagen Beetle and driven to the town square "for everyone to see." The Globalists hold that the day of the great event has not yet arrived, but the Sacrificialists believe that the day has long since come and gone.

Now I, the ignorant observer, cannot judge between the interpretations because I am not sufficiently familiar with the prophecy or the history of the society. But I can fairly judge whether or not the arguments of each side are being addressed by the other side. Here's how the Globalists are arguing:

G: How can the Great Event have already happened? Wouldn't you remember if the sky had turned into purple fur in your lifetime? And wouldn't you expect that at least one historian would write at least an entry in his diary saying, "Ho hum, boring day. Oh, yes, the sky did briefly turn purple and furry today."?

S: No, you don't understand. The great event that was prophesied did not involve a purple, furry sky. I can say that the great event has already passed because we believe that the prophecy concerns the sacrifice of a purple cow and the subsequent display of the cow's hide. This happened in 1963, shortly after the Beatles first number 1 single.

G: So you think that the Great Event took place within living memory, in the 1960s? So why didn't the Beatles write a song about it? This is the Great frickin' Event, you know. Why wasn't the whole world talking about it?

S: Because the sacrifice and flaying of a purple cow in Abilene, Texas, is not considered to be a noteworthy event in most of the rest of the world. Maybe PETA would be interested, but who else?

G: But, dude, the Great Event would have been seen by the whole world, because the whole sky turned purple and furry. Don't you remember how the prophecy says "a cow's hide will be displayed for all to see?"

In short, the Globalists are not just begging a question, they're begging the root question, i.e. "What does the prophecy say is going to happen."
---

Dispensationalists: You're begging the root question. If the preterists' interpretation of Olivet and Revelation is correct, then asking why the whole world didn't realize that the prophecies had been fulfilled is foolish. "But their interpretation is not correct," you say. That's begging the question.

Preterists: Would any of you be willing to exercise (some would say strain) the principle of charity and construct a decent argument for the dispensationalist interpretation?

Thank you all,

Matthew

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 04:05 PM
Dear Matthew:

I just met you, and I love you already. That was superb!!! Bravo!

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 04:13 PM
All you have to do now is apply that to the Old Testament prophecies, and you'll be vaccinated against obsessive-compulsive literalism.

Jerry, what about the patristic concensus on baptismal regeneration?

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 04:14 PM
Dear Jerry:

You are very good at answering questions, whether explicit or implied, with questions but never answering. Peter said that Joel was being fulfilled then. If you have a problem believing that your problem is with Peter not with me. I am not obliged to play ten thousand questions with you. You posed a challenge on Joel. I answered by saying that an Apostle claimed it is a first century event. You countered with a "yeah but" that never dealt with the fact that Peter still said that it was a first century event. That is not how debates work.

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 04:32 PM
Dee Dee,

Tell me where Peter ever said that all the events recorded by Joel were fulfilled in the first century.I certainly do not see him saying any such thing.He was pointing out that some of the things prophesised by Joel were beginning to take place.

Are you willing to argue that the following event was COMPLETELY fulfilled on the day of Pentecost,or even in the first century?:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days,saith God,I will pour out My Spirit UPON ALL FLESH..."(Acts2:17).

Are you willing to argue that even though Peter said that the events happening on the day of Pentecost represented the ALL the things which would happen during the "last days"?

If you are,then perhaps you can tell us when the following event happened which are said to happen in the "last day"?

"And this is the Father´s will Who hath sent Me,that of all that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,but should raise it up THE LAST DAY"(Jn.6:39).

And that corresponds exactly with the words of Daniel:

"...and there shall be a time of trouble,such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time;and at that time thy people shall be delivered,every one that shall be found written in the book.And many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake,some to everlasting life,and some to shame and everlasting contempt"(Dan.12:1,2).

So perhaps you will back up your words that ALL of these events were fulfilled in the first century.Or perhaps you will demonstrate that Peter said that ALL of these things were fulfilled in the first century.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 04:41 PM
Jerry again you are going off on a wild tangent with questions to occupy my every waking moment. Let's go back to your original proposition.... I only need to disprove its inapplicability to your argument... You are claiming support for a world wide event by appealing to Joel 2. I pointed out that Joel 2 was referenced by Peter as being fulfilled in the first century. You then counter that only some of Joel was being fulfilled in the first century, well Jerry if that is possible, then even in your own view, this judgment of all the nations does not have to be in the first century or even part of the Great Trib at all. Your original argument had the underlying presumption that all of these things were part and parcel of one event, but you have now conceded (and I don't even need to agree with you) that part of it could be referring legitimately to the first century and the other part to the end of history. But for the record, Christ is judging among the nations now. There is nothing in that text, and many texts to disprove it, that necessitates a one-time simultaneous event. The Trib comes, Christ reigns and judges among the nations. It really is not that difficult of a concept. Much proof of this issue has been given to you before, as Smilax has alluded to in the discussion of the now/not yet phemenoma of Scripture.

And as usual, you found "ten" (figurative use here) more questions to throw in. The fact is that you and I have gone over the John 5 issue multiple times (and I do have those files) with regards to the timing of same.

It would be nice if the points that all of us have brought up about the language within the Discourse itself as well as the numerous other unanswered questions we posed were dealt with. Until then, you are not going to run me like an obnoxious diner at Denny's that then leaves a lousy tip.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by automatthew
Begged questions:

The whole thread has become very frustrating for this reader.That was a funny post thanks!

Let me just say ONE thing in response.

The idea that the early church fathers didn't record the events in 70AD is only one of MANY reasons as to why preterism is a flawed theology. If this were the only thing up for debate it might seem a bit odd.

If you would like more info on how pretrerism isn't consistent (even on its own terms) you might want to check out....
The EASTER debate (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5379)

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 04:48 PM
And as a footnote, the burden of proof is not upon me to prove that Peter meant that the whole passage was being fulfilled in the 1st century, for Peter is pretty plain... it is the burden of those who would deny same.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 04:50 PM
Dear Mattthew:

Please do check out that link that Knight provided. My dispensational opponent there actually answers questions. I think it will give you some of the information you are looking for. Of course Knight is wrong that it is embarassing to me... but I will allow you to be the judge of that.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Mattthew:
My dispensational opponent there actually answers questions. Uhg... :mad:

Jerry Shugart
January 23rd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Dee Dee,

You say that the Lord is judging the nations now.Well,I can only surmise that the end of the dispensation of grace is over now.We are no longer to proclaim the word of reconciliation and we are no longer the ministers of reconciliation:

"To wit,that God was in Christ reconciling the world into Himself,NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES UNTO THEM,and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation"(2Cor.5:19).

Which is it,Dee Dee?Are we to proclaim to the world that God is not now imputing their trespasses unto them,or are we now supposed to say that He is now judging and imputing trespasses?

If it is the later,then I can only conclude that the epistles of Paul are no longer applicable.

And I can also conclude that the following event is taking place right now:

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory,and all the holy angels with Him,then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory.And before Him shall be gathered all the nations;and He shall separate one from another,as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.And He shall set the sheep on His right hand,and the goats on the left"(Mt.25:31).

But if I remember correctly,you said that the verses that say that when all the tribes of the earth see Him coming in the clouds of heaven in His glory do not mean that He actally came,but instead these verses refer to His judgment that came in 70AD.

As usual,I am more confused than ever after hearing your explanations.

In His grace,--Jerry

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 05:16 PM
That is a total non sequiter. When I get some time, I will show why... TOL has eaten a great deal of my day today and I have promised Lion a response tonight... I don't think it is going to happen. And I just found out my brother (remember the one with cancer - the chemo is working praise God!!!) will be in town to visit me tomorrow.

And I do not want to hijack, flood, this thread with the answer on the coming on the clouds, which is actually a strength of preterism and devasting to futurism. If anyone is interested, I can link them to the answer to that question in another thread. And actually it is more than answered in BRIII located here

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3160

In fact a great deal of your questions were already asked and answered there.

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 05:17 PM
John iii, 18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

By your logic, when Christ came, the dispensation of grace was already over.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 05:33 PM
Good point Smilax. You said in few words what would have taken me 18000 characters.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by smilax
John iii, 18: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

By your logic, when Christ came, the dispensation of grace was already over. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read!

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 05:38 PM
It would be dumb if what Smilax was saying he was advocating. He is not. He is applying Jerry's logic to that verse, that is all, and demonstrating that Jerry's point was inane which he demonstrated quite nicely.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
It would be dumb if what Smilax was saying he was advocating. He is not. He is applying Jerry's logic to that verse, that is all, and demonstrating that Jerry's point was inane which he demonstrated quite nicely. Like I said... that was the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 05:45 PM
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. And like I said.....

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 06:21 PM
Mr. Jerry,

I am very much interested in your earlier remarks that certain verses contained in the prophetic writings are "ancient 'trash talk'--no more." Are you saying that you do not believe that the books which contain those words are not inspired of God?

Not at all. They are inspired, but they belong in a genre. It is like saying Psalms is poetry.

I honestly want you to explain more fully your words that these verses are "trash talk".

I used modern vernacular. A more technical term would be "war oracle" but I did not think many here would jibe with that term. A war oracle (like the ones I quoted) was characterized by excessive hyperbolic language and sometimes incredible imagery.

The reason I ask is the fact that there are many people who say that the book of Daniel is NOT inspired of God.

I say it is. I just say we need to read it as Daniel understood it and as his contemporaries understood it. Not doing this -- what I call "decontextualization" -- is one of the great errors we make today when reading the Bible.

Grace,

JP

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 06:45 PM
Faramir: Yes, you read me right. Good show. :)

Sir Canned Ham: I have only answered the points you made, what, 876 times now? Are you deef or somethin'? Are you a canned chicken? Seems like this is the best answer Sir Tinpants has for us:

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read!

Really? Have you read your resume'? :D

Auotmatthew: You are at a disadvantage of course as the members here have discussed this issue in detail in other threads. You come as one "low context" in a high-context setting -- through no fault of your own. Sir Canned Ham forbids posting links, as they seem to irritate him with the spectre of depth discussion, so if you wish for a rundown email me (link at bottom of my message) and I'll direct you to a place where I have summed much of it up in articles.

Time to eat. I'm not having canned ham, it's too greasy.

JP:nono:

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Sir Canned Ham forbids posting links, as they seem to irritate him with the spectre of depth discussion JP, that is a blatant lie and you know it. :mad: I have no problem with external links, people add them all the time. I only asked (on two different occasions) that you make your argument HERE at TOL and then if you like you could add external links as references. You were simply attempting to let your links speak for you (so to speak).

TOL's purpose is to debate the issues here on our forum.

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Dear Mattthew:

Please do check out that link that Knight provided. My dispensational opponent there actually answers questions. I think it will give you some of the information you are looking for. Of course Knight is wrong that it is embarassing to me... but I will allow you to be the judge of that.

Well said Dee Dee

Knight? Jerry? did ya miss me?

jpholding
January 23rd, 2003, 08:17 PM
Dear Tinpants,


JP, that is a blatant lie and you know it. :mad: I have no problem with external links, people add them all the time.
I only asked (on two different occasions) that you make your argument HERE at TOL and then if you like you could add external links as references.


You were simply attempting to let your links speak for you (so to speak).

Given that my argument had not been made yet, how could you possibly make such a judgment??? Dog, if you had WAITED a few ticks I would have made my argument. :p I gave links first to give people an idea where I'd be coming from. Background context. If you don't do this you end up with confused folks like Matthew who walk in here and have no idea what we are talking about because they lack the context. May as well just speak in tongues. The links gave necessary background to my position and coming argument. If you'd rather I'll waste bandwidth posting whole danged articles here verbatim.

As it is I had someone (a Tekton reader) who tuned in from my link to here and wrote me saying they had no idea what preterism was and asked for help understanding what we were talking about. Minus your Quick Draw McGraw tendencies, they would not have had that problem. And how many out there just giving up rather than writing and asking for help?

And given your performance so far, you're still clearly avoiding depth discussion. Speak a piece about what I wrote back there about Dan. 12:2 and maybe I'll believe you're not trying to hide behind that shield.


Good night,

JP

Faramir
January 23rd, 2003, 08:17 PM
Knight I see you have learned how to answer a post point by point. Verry good. Now I will do the same for you. Maybe now this thread can stop spinning and actually get somewhere. FYI your post responding to my post will be in black, my response to that post will be in blue.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Faramir
1) Some of the ECFs did support a fulfillment of the OD in AD70 (but they were not early enough for you, how convenient)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faramir, with all due respect the very premise of this thread is that the earliest church fathers did not record the events 70AD as being the great Tribulation.

Like I said, convenient. Dispensationalist start the thread, redefine ECF half way through the debate when it suites their purpose, and insist that they are being fair.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Many of the ECFs were inconsistent with there eschatology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This point would help neither side of the argument.

Well, at least you agree with Dee Dee on this. However, it was a dispensationalist that started this tread, right? If you now admit that the ECFs were inconsistent, then why did you think it was important to allege that they did not believe in an AD 70 fulfillment of the "Great" Tribulation?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Many (most, all) of the ECFs made mistakes much worse than a bad eschatology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all agree.... but something as important as the Great Tribulation should get at least some notice.

I already answered that (see #4 below)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Most of the arguments present by Dispensationalist in this thread assume that the "Great" Tribulation is a world wide all life as we know it affecting event. Of course the ECF never said that(world wide thing) happened. It did not happen. No preterist ever said it did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "localized Great Tribulation" theory is comical. "All" may not mean "All" but it should most certainly mean at least "some", don't ya think? One third may not really mean one third but it certainly should mean more than one five hundredth dont ya think?

Hint, localized is the key word here. "All" would be a large part of the local population. And certainly more than one five hundredth of the local population was affected

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) The preterist have given reason why we believe that the tribulation in the OD and Rev. was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These reasons have been summarily ignored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They have not been ignored in the least. They have been rejected! As Dee Dee so rightly points out you shouldn't overstate your case, it makes you look silly.


Here we are in agreement. How silly of me. I did in fact overstate my case. I said that our arguments had been ignored. Saying our theories are comical is not ignoring our arguments. What I should have said is that an honest response to our auguments has been avoided like the plauge. But you are getting better.

Dee Dee Warren
January 23rd, 2003, 08:25 PM
:D

smilax
January 23rd, 2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Knight
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read!And I suppose Jerry's argument about Christ's present judgment of the nations as damaging to evangelism was a brilliant argument in favor of the dispensationalist viewpoint.

You really shouldn't let common conclusions blind you to meaningless arguments.

Knight
January 23rd, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by jpholding
Dear Tinpants,

Good night,

JP Good riddance!

automatthew
January 24th, 2003, 12:15 AM
JPH wrote:
> Automatthew: You are at a disadvantage of course as the members here have discussed this issue in detail in other threads.

Participants in a discussion should not have to discourse at a level suitable for the uninformed. My initial ignorance is my problem.
But this particular thread contains little more from one side than repetitions of "You're wrong!", "I reject that!" and "But what about Auxiliary Topics D-Z?" Oh, yes, and "That's the dumbest thing I've ever read." Defenses previously mounted don't inform current discussions unless you refer to them.
How about: "You're wrong for the same reasons you were wrong the last time we had this argument (which may be reviewed at this link)." Or: "I reject that argument based on factors that have been discussed ad infinitum in this forum. The beating most recently administered on this topic may be found here." Even: "Zounds, woman, we had this argument last week and even your mother agreed that I won."


> You come as one "low context" in a high-context setting

Granted. I agree that the Dispensationalists are operating in a high context environment, that of their own begged questions. Seriously, though, as a relative newcomer to the topic, I will not presume to pronounce upon the issues. I will presume to pronounce upon bad reasoning. It's always open season on fallacious arguments, and slings are just as good as swords and spears.

Matthew

Knight
January 24th, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by automatthew
Participants in a discussion should not have to discourse at a level suitable for the uninformed. My initial ignorance is my problem.
But this particular thread contains little more from one side than repetitions of "You're wrong!", "I reject that!" and "But what about Auxiliary Topics D-Z?" Oh, yes, and "That's the dumbest thing I've ever read." Defenses previously mounted don't inform current discussions unless you refer to them.
How about: "You're wrong for the same reasons you were wrong the last time we had this argument (which may be reviewed at this link)." Or: "I reject that argument based on factors that have been discussed ad infinitum in this forum. The beating most recently administered on this topic may be found here." Even: "Zounds, woman, we had this argument last week and even your mother agreed that I won."
Or how about....

"None of the earliest church fathers believed that the Great Tribulation happened in 70 AD."

"OK your right but a few later church fathers did say..... "

Even that would be refreshing at this point.

Lion
January 24th, 2003, 02:13 AM
Knight-Thanks. I cannot stand dishonest, manipulative, sarcastic, pointless posters like Holding.

Enough is enough already. Especially considering the allowances you made for him to participate at all. How many times does someone have to show his contempt and rudeness before being banned?

I think you gave him far too many chances.